Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Dumbarton in the room of Thomas Cassells, Esquire, who since his election for the said County hath accepted the office of Sheriff-Substitute of Inverness, Elgin and Nairn, at Fort William.—[Sir Charles Edwards.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHIPLEY) BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MINERS, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the number of half-day's employment experienced by mine workers in parts of South Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether he is prepared to consider the need for allowing such periods of unemployment to be calculated in a manner so as to provide unemployment benefit to the workers so affected?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am informed by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines that the average number of days worked by collieries in South Wales does not indicate that there is at present an abnormal degree of short-time working. The remedy for the degree of difficulty which exists lies in further organisation of the arrangements in the industry. I cannot contemplate the alterations my hon. Friend suggests in the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme which cannot be confined to mine workers.

Mr. Daggar: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that six half-days constitutes the waiting period, and as the Statutory

Committee is about to issue its annual report, will he advise it to have regard to the point I have raised?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot advise the Committee. I am afraid that is outside my province.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that colliery companies are told the night before that their employés must work a full day and that they then discover that they can work only half-a-day? Will he look into that problem?

Mr. Bevin: I think that question had better be put to the Minister of Transport and the Secretary for Mines.

CARMARTHENSHIRE.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations from the Carmarthenshire County Council in regard to the increasing unemployment in the area; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I have been unable to trace any recent representations from the Carmarthenshire County Council on this subject. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the general statement which I made in the debate on 22nd January.

Mr. Griffiths: No doubt my right hon. Friend is well aware that, owing to the decision announced during the last few days to curtail production, unemployment in this county has seriously increased? Will that be borne in mind.

Mr. Bevin: That will be borne in mind. I am already taking steps with every industrial council in the country to examine the people who are affected by this reconstruction, with a view to arriving at an organised arrangement for transference to other industries.

ASSISTANCE BOARD (FACILITIES, NEWQUAY AND DAGENHAM).

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can expedite his inquiries regarding the working of the Assistance Board in Newquay in view of the fact that a further party of evacuated women and children may be sent there at any time, and it is desirable that members of the next party shall not suffer the same


hardships as some mothers and children in earlier parties through failure of the Assistance Board to provide those without funds with the means to buy food over week-ends?

Mr. Bevin: Pending the completion of these inquiries, an officer of the Board has attended at Newquay Employment Exchange on pay days and will continue to do so as long as is necessary.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Dagenham is served by no less than four separate offices, three being outside the borough, for different Assistance Board purposes, which causes great confusion and inconvenience; and whether a central office will be opened for all purposes within the borough?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): The Board inform my right hon. Friend that they are looking into this suggestion.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour how many Employment Exchanges are now open; how many persons are employed in them; whether he will set up a committee to inquire into the need for continuing open each individual exchange; and how far a comb-out of staff at each exchange, compatible with efficiency, can be effected, now that the irreducible hard core of unemployment is being reached?

Mr. Bevin: The number of Employment Exchanges is 508; in addition to which there are 264 employment offices. The number of persons employed therein, permanent and temporary, is approximately 20,000. The reduction in the work at the exchanges owing to the fall in unemployment has been more than offset by new work arising out of the war. The exchanges are my principal instrument for carrying out the measures necessary for obtaining and organising the personnel required by our war effort. The burden on the exchanges, already very heavy, will be increased by the proposals which I recently announced to the House and the staff of the exchanges will have to be further increased in order to enable them to cope with this task

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to the proposal that the difference between the remuneration of a conscientious objector in civil employment and the value of a soldier's pay and rations should be paid compulsorily into a central fund and devoted to some special purpose?

Mr. Bevin: I have given careful consideration to this proposal, which would require legislation before it could be put into effect, and have discussed it with the Joint Consultative Committee representing the T.U.C. and the British Employers' Confederation. As a result, I am satisfied that, whatever may be the merits of the proposal otherwise, it would arouse acute controversy and would require disproportionately elaborate and expensive administrative machinery for its effective operation. In these circumstances I have decided not to proceed further in the matter.

ALIENS (WORKING PERMITS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that working permits have been refused to aliens who have been released from internment; and whether he will state the reason for this?

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries, but I shall be much obliged if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any cases he has in mind.

Mr. Mander: I shall be glad to do so.

LABOUR, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are 20,000 Anderson shelters in Sheffield which, owing to their flooded condition, cannot be used and that the city engineer has only been able to get 130 men for the contractors undertaking the work and these contractors are capable of employing 600 men; and can anything be done towards securing this labour, as the matter is extremely urgent?

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made and will communicate with his hon. Friend.

EASTERN GROUP CONFERENCE.

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has come to any decision on the publication of the recommendations of the Delhi Conference?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Eastern Group Conference recommended the immediate consideration of: (i) the establishment in India of a Central Provision Office to coordinate military requirements within the area concerned; and (ii) the appointment of a new body to be called the Eastern Group Supply Council to co-ordinate the production and supply of munitions and stores to meet these requirements. These recommendations have been accepted by the Governments concerned, and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have appointed Sir Archibald Carter, lately Permanent Secretary to the Board of Admiralty, to be their representative and Chairman of the Council, and Major-General W. C. Holden to be the officer in charge of the Central Provision Office. Sir Archibald Carter and Major-General Holden are taking up their appointments immediately. Further recommendations for making the fullest possible use of the productive capacity of the various countries are being actively followed up.

INDIA (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is to be accepted as Government policy that not until Indian leaders have come to an agreement among themselves is any forward step to be taken for constitutional reform in India; and further, that the form of agreement must have the approval of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Amery: I do not feel that I can do more than refer my hon. Friend to the statements of policy made by the Governor-General on 8th August and 20th November last.

Mr. Cary: Is India to continue in-definitely in her present political status in relation to our Empire war effort? Surely she deserves a more positive policy.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, the policy to which I referred is a very positive policy and marks a very great advance.

Mr. Sorensen: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not repudiate the principle of at least sympathetically considering and implementing any majority decision of any democratically elected body?

Mr. Amery: It depends upon the area over which the election takes place and the amount of consent there is. Naturally, our whole sympathy is on the side of establishing self-government in India.

Mr. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared at all times to use his good offices to promote understanding among the people of India?

Mr. Amery: My good offices will always be available.

POLISH JEWS (CONSCRIPTION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain Polish Jewish refugees fled to this country through fear or experience of Polish anti-semitic repression; and, in view of the fact that prominent anti-semitic Poles have attempted to continue their propaganda through publications in this country, he will ensure that no Polish Jewish refugee of military age who objects through racial fears to serve in any Polish military force in this country, shall be compelled to join, but shall at least be given the option of serving in our own or another force?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison):: The whole question of the procedure for the enforcement of conscription of Allied citizens by Allied Governments in this country is receiving urgent attention from the Departments of His Majesty's Government. As regards the position of Polish Jews in the Polish national forces, I would call the attention of my hon. Friend to the "Order of the Day" published by the Polish Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief on 5th August last, which emphasises that all Polish citizens serving in the Polish forces are equal and that no discrimination will be tolerated on the grounds of race or religion.

Mr. Sorensen: Are there any specific instances of complaints on the matter mentioned in the Question, and, if there are, will my right hon. Friend personally investigate those complaints?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me, I will see what I can do, but he will appreciate that within a certain sphere the Allied Governments have statutory rights of their own which have been granted by the House.

Mr. Mander: Is it proposed to introduce shortly legislation on the compulsory calling-up of Allied subjects?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

SHELTERS.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary why surface shelters are still being built without sufficient provision being made for bunking, sanitation, lighting and heating?

Mr. H. Morrison: I take it that the question refers to the position in the London region, about which I have accordingly made special inquiry. So far as I am aware, no new public surface shelters are now being built without allowance being made for the provision of bunking, sanitation, lighting or heating. If the hon. Member will supply me with particulars of any cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary what is the war's total of deep shelter air-raid casualties in the London area, also the number of surface shelter casualties in the London area?

Mr. Morrison: It would not be in the public interest to give particulars of the kind asked for.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep shelters are not conducive to the dispersal of population, and was not the necessity for this dispersal an important part of the Horder report?

Mr. Morrison: The Government have made it clear through the newspapers that the principle of dispersal should be applied wherever practicable.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the penalising of those county councils who were efficient in constructing air-raid shelters prior to 19th October, 1940, the date after which the Government will meet the whole cost; and whether he can agree to treat all air-raid shelters which meet his specification with

equality and make reimbursement retrospective?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make the scheme for reimbursing local authorities who have constructed air-raid shelters after 19th October, 1940, apply equally to those who constructed shelters at an earlier date, in order that those authorities who showed the greatest foresight in shelter construction shall not be penalised as against those who delayed making shelter provision?

Mr. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker).

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great feeling and disappointment among the local authorities that those who were efficient and went ahead with this work are to get no reimbursement, whereas those that were not efficient and are now being pushed to do the work are to get full reimbursement? There seems to be an element of injustice in this to which the local authorities take great exception.

Mr. Morrison: The House seems to be very anxious to spend a lot of money. However, I quite appreciate the feeling of hon. Members, and I do not say that there is no justification for it. The decision to give 100 per cent. was not an easy one, and I got it on the basis that I had to move quickly and to have power and authority to compel the job to be done over the heads of the local authorities, if necessary. Therefore, I needed 100 per cent. Having got it on that basis, I do not think I should be justified in going a long way back into the past and making retrospective State grants.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that it is precisely the more progressive authorities that are penalised, and is it characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to do that?

Mr. Morrison: I could perhaps put the argument even more forcibly than my hon. Friend. I am very familiar with the argument and recognise its force, but on balance I think that the decision which I have reached, in blitz conditions and with an eye to the future rather than to


the past, is a right one, and I do not think I should be justified in pressing for retrospective payments.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficiency should be penalised in this fashion, and was the decision reached off the right hon. Gentleman's own bat or was it caused by the attitude of the Treasury?

Mr. Morrison: All these decisions were mutual. I took my responsibilities, and I am still taking them in the House under cross-examination. All these decisions were matters of arrangement and discussion. I admit that there is a conflict concerning the element of justice in the case, and I can only plead that on broad grounds of public policy and expediency I think the decision was a right one, and I cannot go back on it.

DETENTIONS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary how many of the 300 odd recommendations from the Advisory Committee as a result of appeals from persons detained under Regulation 18B which were still without decision on 29th January had been in his hands more than one, three and five months, respectively?

Mr. H. Morrison: The numbers are 196, 12 and none respectively.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary whether recommendations regarding detainees under Regulation 18B come direct to his Department from the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that these recommendations do not go across to the Military Intelligence Department at all, but are dealt with entirely by the Home Office?

Mr. Morrison: Opportunity is given for observation by the appropriate Department concerned with security, and I think it is essential that that should be done.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there is no undue delay by the Department?

Mr. Morrison: We may differ about what is undue delay sometimes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I keep a very careful watch. If and when I come across undue delay, there is a suitable row about it.

Captain Shaw: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if these people send in fresh evidence, he himself considers it?

Mr. Morrison: I hardy consider it direct. I think that if they sent in fresh material, the Advisory Committee would in all likelihood hear the case again.

Sir Irving Albery: Does not the present procedure seem to show some lack of confidence in the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Morrison: I do not follow the hon. Member's point. I have made it abundantly clear that I have great confidence in the Advisory Committee. It the hon. Member means that the Security Services should not have any iocus in the matter, and that if they do it is a reflection on the Advisory Committee, I cannot agree with him. It is absolutely essential that the Security Services should have an opportunity of making observations.

FIRE WATCHERS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether, in schemes of compulsory fire-watching he will see that reasonable protection is afforded the fire-watchers, particularly for young and elderly people; and, in view of the possibility of explosive bombs being dropped at the same time, or shortly after, incendiaries, whether he will deprecate the employment of young or elderly people for this purpose when this can be avoided; and whether fire-watching schemes will always be subordinate to the direction of the local air-raid precautions and Auxiliary Fire Services?

Mr. H. Morrison: The instruction given in, and the equipment being provided for, fire-fighting are designed to minimise the risks attendant on the performance of this duty; the question of physical suitability is more important than that of age. As my hon. Friend is aware, the age limits prescribed in the recent Defence Regulations on the subject, so far as an obligation is imposed, are between 16 and 60; and for the moment the lower limit is being maintained at 18. As regards the last part of the Question, arrangements are subject to the approval of the local authority or other appropriate authorities.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some fire-watchers who have been killed might have escaped death if they had taken reasonable pre-


cautions, and will he see that, as far as possible, boys and girls under 18 are not employed in tasks which are not quite suitable to their years?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in Liverpool and elsewhere young people between 16 and 18 are very anxious to serve, and will he also see that Civil Defence cadet units similar to the one in Liverpool are now recognised?

Mr. Morrison: There probably have been some deaths owing to lack of precautions or knowledge. We are doing all that we can to spread the knowledge, but I am bound to say on that point, and on the question of venturesome young people—and, let me add, adventurous old people—that I do not think it would accord with the spirit of the nation if I were to make any restrictions.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is not my desire to prevent these people from expressing their laudable spirit of adventure and service, but to try to protect them against what may be impetuousness?

Sir Stanley Reed: Is there any good reason why elderly people should not take their fair share of responsibilities and risks in these days?

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that some employers of labour are using the Business Premises (Fire Prevention) to induce employés, who are already members of Civil Defence services, to resign from these services to become fire-watchers for their employers' premises; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the strength of the Civil Defence services and their members from this pressure?

Mr. Morrison: I have within the last few days issued a public statement indicating that no pressure whatever should be brought on effective members of the Civil Defence services to leave those services and take up fire-fighting duties at their place of work. I hope that this will have the desired effect and that it will be unnecessary for me to take further measures but I shall watch the position closely.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the interests of fire watchers who are employés and who may be forced to leave the A.R.P.

services for which they are fully trained? Will he safeguard their interests if pressure is brought to bear upon them?

Mr. Morrison: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, and I will certainly take whatever action I can in the matter. I would urge any workpeople, trained in the Civil Defence services, who have such pressure brought to bear upon them, to report the matter if they wish to their trade union, and certainly to the local authorities, and the local authorities to report it to the Regional Commissioner.

Mr. Lindsay: Has the right hon. Gentleman power to deal with such employers?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure, but I may have to take new powers.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the home Secretary whether, in cases where there are insufficient men at the disposal of a firm or a group to form a fire party on duty each night, the local authority will provide men from the pool free of charge?

Mr. Morrison: If the appropriate authority is satisfied that occupiers, either separately or in combination, are unable to make the necessary provision without the assistance of the local authority, the local authority must give that assistance.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that the power of a local authority to charge shall not be enforced where there is a genuine attempt to fulfil obligations, but only in cases where there is deliberate negligence?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I could not give a clear answer to that. Circumstances of cases would vary, and matters of equity would arise. Therefore, I think cases must be dealt with administratively when they arise. I shall have plenty of complications in the operation of this Order, and I shall do my best about them.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Question was put down because some local authorities are not quite clear what their powers are in this respect?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend knows of any instances, he can draw my attention to them or advise the local authorities to confer with the Regional Commissioner.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: What is to happen in factories where nearly all the employés are women and girls? Are the local authorities to be made responsible for looking after such factories?

Mr. H. Morrison: That is one of the many tricky problems with which we shall have to deal, and I do not think they can be answered across the Floor of the House.

Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases payment for this service is being offered and demanded far in excess of the payments made to the ordinary fire services? That is a matter which requires attention.

Mr. Morrison: There is a point in that. I think sometimes that payment for full-time fire watching is on the luxury side compared with that of the A.F.S. personnel. Employers should keep that point in mind in the interest of morale.

Mr. Woodburn (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement about the supply of steel helmets for fire watchers and members of fire parties?

Mr. Morrison: A new type of steel helmet has been devised for civilian use. It is made of mild steel of about the same thickness as the service steel helmet, but it is lighter in weight. The helmet has a low brim and can be worn without a chin strap. There is a simple lining, which is fastened to the body of the helmet by a lace threaded through small holes in the side. The Ministry of Supply has arranged a production programme, and supplies have already begun. The Ministry of Home Security will exercise control of distribution, first to areas specially liable to enemy attack. Supplies for some areas may have to be deferred for some considerable time until the chief requirements of the most vulnerable areas have been met.
As supplies become available the new helmets will be used first to equip fire watchers, and fire parties in areas in which the recent Regulations and Orders about fire prevention have been put in force. In these areas householders enrolled as members of fire parties enrolled by local authorities, if they undertake regular duty and have no helmet at present, will be supplied with a helmet free, on loan. In other areas

householders serving as members of fire parties who are not entitled to a free issue of helmets will be able to buy them. Occupiers of commercial and industrial premises forming their own fire parties will be enabled to buy helmets for members of those parties under special arrangements which will be announced at an early date. The price of the helmets will be 5s. 6d. each. As soon as these demands and certain official requirements have been met, the new helmets may be bought by employers for the use of their workers generally—office staffs as well as industrial workers. The helmet will be a protection at work during alerts and also on journeys to and from work. The helmets will also be made available to voluntary organisations for members who are doing national service of some sort. The sale of these helmets commercially or for profit will be forbidden and private applications from persons wishing to use or sell the helmets cannot be entertained.

Mr. Thorne: Will it be the right hon. Gentleman who will decide to which local authorities helmets are first sent?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the vulnerable areas are supplied with a small number of helmets to be going on with, as in many streets there are fire parties which have not a single helmet among them? It would be better to send a few at a time than to wait to give a full supply to each area in turn.

Mr. H. Morrison: Certainly I will do my best to effect the most equitable and advantageous distribution, and will take that matter into account, but the hon. Member will appreciate that with the creation of this very big army of firebomb fighters, which has been a great credit to the country, we naturally could not at once have the steel helmets ready for them, but we are getting on with the work.

AIR-RAID CASUALTIES.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Home Secretary the number of air raid casualties during January?

Mr. H. Morrison: It has now been the practice for some time for a statement to be issued each month giving particulars of the air raid casualties during the preceding month. A statement in respect of


the air raid casualties during January will be issued in the usual way within the course of the next few days.

INTERNEES.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary what is the position of more than 100 refugees who have been brought back from Canada for release and have now been for many weeks in Huyton camp?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply which I gave to a Question on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) on 30th January.

Mr. Strauss: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these men have already had a preliminary inspection from Sir Alexander Paterson, and will he not keep them very long at Huyton, as presumably they are people who are willing and able to do pioneer work, agricultural work, and so on?

Mr. Morrison: It must be clear that they have no more prima facie grounds for release than any other refugees, but the fact that they have been to Canada and back may be a consideration, and I am anxious that they shall be sorted out, if I may so put it, as soon as possible. The fact of their return from Canada, however, indicates only that they have prima facie case for consideration, and it does not of itself give them priority over other refugees who have been interned in the Isle of Man for some time.

Mr. Sorensen: How many refugees are interned in camps in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make representations to the Dominion Government to reconsider the position of Alexander Fischer, who escaped from his German guards when being transferred from Dachau to Buchenwald, came to this country as a refugee, was interned and sent to Canada, where he escaped and reached the United States of America, and, on being sent back to Canada, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for escaping?

Mr. Morrison: The Question refers no doubt to Manuel Fischer, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to this case. I am getting into

immediate communication with His Majesty's Government in Canada and will inform my hon. Friend of the result of my inquiries.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in process of search at Quebec of the belongings of a batch of alien refugees sent to Canada, goods to the value of £1,200 were stolen; that this theft has been the subject of a court of inquiry in Canada, but that no steps have been taken to recompense the refugees for the loss sustained; and, as in many cases the goods stolen were the only possessions of the refugees, will he take steps to pay them proper compensation?

Mr. Morrison: In the time available since this Question was put down it has not been possible to obtain any definite information about the incident referred to. It seems probable, however, that the matter is primarily one for the Canadian authorities, and I am having inquiries made. I should be glad if my hon. Friend could let me have any information in his possession about this matter.

Mr. Harvey: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make any further statement as to the position with regard to the married internees who went to Australia on the "Dunera," and who were to have been joined in internment there by their wives and children?

Mr. Morrison: I have now learned that the Australian authorities are willing, subject to certain conditions, that the wives and children in question should go to Australia. The present lack of shipping facilities, however, presents a serious obstacle to this course and other considerations have arisen since the question was first considered which have an important bearing on the matter; for instance, a considerable number of the internees in Australia are prospective emigrants to the United States, while others may be eligible for release under the categories of the White Paper. I am very grateful to the Australian Government for their offer, and we will make every attempt to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred, but I have come to the conclusion that at all events at present it is not practicable, or in the interests of the parties concerned, to avail ourselves of this offer. In the meantime, as indicated by my hon. Friend the Par-


liamentary Secretary in an answer which he gave on 21st January, my representative is now on his way to Australia; he is being asked in particular to look into the position with regard to these married internees and will personally interview the internees concerned.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Home Secretary take steps to bring back any married men in cases where an assurance was given which cannot now be fulfilled?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly that point will be given consideration. On balance, I think, the matter can be better dealt with on the spot by my reprsentative who is on his way over, but my hon. Friend knows that I am quite sympathetic on the matter.

Mr. G. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a definite undertaking was given by his predecessor that wives would be sent out to their husbands in Australia?

Mr. Morrison: It was a conditional undertaking, if it were possible, and related to a limited number of cases. However, I do not wish to press that point unduly. I am very anxious that the spirit of that undertaking shall be observed, and I am very grateful to His Majesty's Government in Australia for their helpfulness in the matter.

Captain Shaw: asked the Home Secretary the number of interned Jewish refugees who are eligible to join the Pioneer Corps and the number who have already volunteered?

Mr. Morrison: Up to 31st January applications for enlistment in the Pioneer Corps had been received from 1,974 Germans and Austrians and from 288 Italians. I cannot say how many of the applicants are Jewish, since the statistics are not kept on a basis of creed or race.

INJURED PERSONNEL (COMPENSATION).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the habit of responsible authorities to discharge Air-Raid Precautions or Auxiliary Fire Service men injured in the course of their duties if they have not recovered within the period of 13 weeks; that great hardship is thereby entailed; and whether he will take prompt steps to remedy this injustice?

Mr. H. Morrison: Members of Civil Defence organisations receive, in addition to the injury allowances and pensions provided by the Personal Injuries (Compensation) Scheme available for civilians who are injured by enemy action, additional payments which, in cases of injury, provide the volunteer with the equivalent of full pay for a period up to 13 weeks before discharge from the Service without prejudice to his subsequent reinstatement. In this respect the treatment of injured Civil Defence personnel corresponds closely to that of military personnel. For obvious reasons there must be some limit to the period during which an injured Civil Defence volunteer may remain on full pay, and, taking into account the fact that he will continue to be eligible for free medical treatment for his injuries, I do not think that the rule of a maximum of 13 weeks' full pay before reverting to the normal scale of compensation or pension for a civilian can be regarded as ungenerous.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the Home Secretary aware that I have here cases of men who have had their thighs broken, or have lost their eyesight, who have now been thrown on the streets because their 13 weeks have expired? Is he also aware that as a result there is a strong tendency among married men to say about a building which is on fire, "Let it burn. There is no one inside. We do not want to take risks if our families will suffer"?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is so. It will be remembered that the payment was for a very limited period, I think it was for three weeks, and we got it extended to 13 weeks. There must be a time limit, but any suggestion that these men are thrown on to the Poor Law or on to the streets is really not true.

Mr. A. Bevan: Although it may be reasonable to give no more than 13 weeks' full pay, is there any guarantee of reemployment in the event of recovery?

Mr. Morrison: In the event of recovery men will be eligible for re-employment.

Mr. Bevan: Eligibility is not the point; is there a guarantee?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I will not say there is a guarantee. It is a matter for the employing authority, but I should be surprised if there were any cases of fit men not being re-employed. Certainly if


there were, and they were brought to my notice, I should take up the matter.

MEDICAL SERVICES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at present existing in the medical procession with regard to the failure to utilise to the fullest extent the services of the medical profession in the national effort, owing to lack of coordination and co-operation between the Emergency Medical Service, the medical services of the Armed Forces and the general body of civilian medical practitioners, he will consider the advisability of appointing a small non-medical committee to investigate the most effective organisation for utilising to the best advantage the medical services of the country?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): My right hon. Friends the Service Ministers, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I are not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction such as is referred to by the hon. Member, but we have recently had the advice of a Committee appointed to consider the steps necessary to secure a proper allocation of the available medical man-power between civilian and military services. The Committee consisted of Sir Arthur Robinson, as chairman, and three medical men with wide experience of the various branches of the profession, namely, Sir John Fraser, Sir Kaye le Fleming and Professor Picker. Their report is now receiving our active consideration.

Mr. Mander: If I bring evidence of dissatisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, will he give the suggestion further consideration?

Mr. MacDonald: I will certainly give consideration to any information that the hon. Member gives me, but as regards considering his suggestion, he will appreciate that we have adopted the suggestion already some time ago.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the medical profession with a view to their relinquishing some of their trade-union etiquette and rights in order that their work should be better spread over the population?

EVACUATION.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to improve conditions in hostels for evacuated women and children in Newquay?

Mr. M. MacDonald: My regional officers are actively pursuing on the spot the measures necessary to improve conditions in these hostels, and the latest reports I have received indicate that considerable progress is being made. The local council have recently appointed a welfare committee with an experienced social worker as their full-time paid welfare organiser, a step which I welcome and which should lead to great improvement in the work.

"DAILY WORKER" AND "WEEK."

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Home Secretary whether he will now inquire into the amount of financial subsidy received by the "Daily Worker" and the "Week" and the source from which it has come?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand my hon. Friend's suggestion to be that there may have been a subsidy which the recipients would be anxious to conceal. If this should be so, I would point out that any inquiries would not be facilitated by a public statement from me.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it possible now to clear up this controversy as to whether the "Daily Worker" received financial assistance from the Soviet Union? Is there any evidence to that effect?

Mr. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Mr. Shinwell: Then are we to understand that there is no evidence that the "Daily Worker" received financial assistance from the Soviet Union?

Mr. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Mr. Thorne: Would not all this controversy he averted if every organisation were compelled to publish its balance-sheet in the same way as the trade unions?

Mr. Morrison: indicated assent.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Home Secretary whether he will now take steps to suppress all Communist activities


which are subversive of this country's war effort?

Mr. H. Morrison: As indicated in my statement on 22nd January, while it is the policy of the Government to make the minimum use of methods of repressing expressions of minority opinions, they fully recognise that appropriate action must be taken against any persons, whatever their political creed, who place impediments in the way of our war effort and thus help the enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

LONDON.

Miss Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children under five years of age still remaining in the London area and the London region; and whether any provision for nursery schools or centres is being provided?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): Figures for the number of children under five years of age still remaining in London and the London region are not available. Arrangements are in operation for the evacuation of such children with their mothers from the Metropolitan evacuation areas. All London nursery schools were evacuated in September, 1939. No new nursery schools are being opened in London nor are existing nursery school premises being re-opened in that area. Nursery centres are applicable only to reception areas.

Miss Cazalet: Does not the Minister think that, where there are good basement shelters in strong buildings, they could be utilised for a few hours in day-time to accommodate children under five?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think the proper place for these children and their mothers is in the reception areas, where they would be safer. In any case it would be difficult to obtain the staff, because they have been evacuated with the children.

Miss Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children of school age still in the London area and the London region; and the number receiving full-time and part-time education?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The estimated number of children of school age now in London is about 84,000. Of these 67,000 are enrolled for full-time education and 2,500 for half-time education. Similar figures are not available for the London region, which does not correspond with local education authority areas, but I shall be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with figures for areas adjacent to London as on 6th December last, the latest date for which returns are available, if she will send me the names of the areas which she has in mind.

Miss Cazalet: Have any transport facilities been arranged by the London County Council?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is a matter for the County Council. I have not the details.

Miss Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children of school age still remaining in Islington and Finsbury; and the number receiving full-time and part-time education?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The estimated number of children of school age now in Islington and Finsbury is about 8,200. Of these, 7,500 are enrolled at the schools, all full-time.

MILK IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. Jackson: asked the President of the Board of Education what steps he is taking to see that supplies of fresh milk are available for children attending elementary schools; and whether he is satisfied that, in areas where there are a large number of evacuees, additional supplies are obtainable.

Mr. Ramsbotham: My Department is in close touch with the Ministry of Food, who are taking all possible steps by priority arrangements and otherwise to secure adequate supply of milk to schools. The Ministry have made arrangements for transferring available supplies from one district to another in accordance with local needs, and these arrangements take account equally of the requirements of evacuated and local children.

Mr. Jackson: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware of the shortage of milk substitutes and can he arrange that the schools have the first call on them?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I should much prefer fresh milk if it is possible to get it

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been very great delay in providing adequate supplies of milk in many of the evacuated areas, particularly in South Wales, and that often children have gone without milk for weeks on end—a very undesirable state of affairs?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am aware of that, and we do our utmost to increase supplies.

NEWSPAPER ACTIVITIES.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Mander,: — To ask the Prime Minister on what dates, and in what circumstances, representatives of the "Daily Mirror" and "Sunday Pictorial" were officially interviewed and warned about the political attitude they were adopting; what was the precise objection taken to their attitude; and whether any other papers, apart from those recently suppressed, have received warnings?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): As the Prime Minister is unavoidably detained, though he will be present a little later, will you, Sir, allow this Question to be repeated at the end of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I can take that course under the Standing Orders.

Later—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Sir, I am not prepared to give any information about confidential communications passing between His Majesty's Government and those who control or conduct newspapers. I must ask the House to support His Majesty's Government in this decision, which is necessary for the effective prosecution of the war.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that unofficial representations were made through certain newspaper proprietors to the "Daily Mirror," on the strength of which it obtained an interview with the Lord Privy Seal and was told that its activities were subversive, but when asked in what way they were subversive, the Lord Privy Seal was unable to give any information? Is it not reasonable that a newspaper should be told in what way its activities are considered prejudicial to the public interest?

The Prime Minister: I do not at all accept this one-sided account of what was undoubtedly a confidential conversation. I do not accept it. But who has ever heard of its being suggested that the Government are not entitled to have confidential conversations with persons connected with the newspaper Press or almost any other form of legitimate activity?

Mr. Bevan: On the other hand, is it not extremely undesirable that the editors of any newspapers should be under a misapprehension as to where they offend? Is not the main complaint here the ambiguity of the charge brought by the Government against the newspapers? If the Government think the newspapers are behaving improperly, why do they not prosecute on specific charges, so that the newspapers may know where they are, and not use this weapon of secret terror?

The Prime Minister: I do not at all accept the version which has been given. As far as I can make out from the hon. Gentleman's Supplementary Question, the Government would only be entitled to prosecute newspapers, and would never be entitled to have, even unofficially, confidential conversations with their owners or controllers. Such an idea is altogether foolish and has no relation whatever to the way in which affairs are conducted in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: But does not this make the position of the Press somewhat uncertain, because they are unaware whether their contents are pleasing to the Government or not, and are only made aware when they receive a friendly visit, not from the police, who are directly responsible, but from others?

The Prime Minister: I think that contention is utterly absurd. Persons, whether Ministers or otherwise, are fully entitled to talk to newspaper people, and very considerable latitude should be allowed on such occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PRODUCTION.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total production of wheat, oats, barley and potatoes in 1939 and 1940, respectively, compared with the average of the preceding ten years?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It would not be in the national interest to disclose statistics for 1940. The production of corn and potatoes last year was, however, substantially greater than it was before the war.

ALLOTMENT HOLDERS (SEED).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now considered the difficulties of allotment holders respecting the high price of seed and the discouragement this gives them; and whether he is taking steps or is encouraging schemes by which allotment holders can secure seed at reasonable prices related to their small incomes?

Mr. Hudson: Now that many of our normal sources of supply of vegetable seed are cut off, some increase in price is inevitable, but I am keeping the matter under close review. Having regard to the comparatively small quantities of seed required for an allotment, these increases should not seriously discourage the allotment holder. Allotment societies affiliated to the National Allotment Society can in fact obtain supplies of seed for their members on special terms, and Local Authorities can take advantage of Section 21 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, which empowers them to provide seeds at cost price to allotment holders where there are no adequate facilities for purchasing from a society on a co-operative basis.

Mr. Sorensen: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is precisely through the concern of local authorities and allotment associations that this matter has been raised. In fact, several local authorities are most anxious regarding the high price of seed for allotment growers.

Mr. Hudson: The facts of the matter are that in peace-time large quantities of seed are received from Holland, Hungary, Italy and Morocco, and all those sources are cut off. Almost our only source of supply is now the United States, where last year they had a very bad seed harvest. Prices in the United States have risen considerably and I am afraid it is inevitable that they should rise here, but there is no reason why local authorities should not take advantage of the facilities that exist in order to provide seed at cost price.

FAT STOCK (FEEDING-STUFFS).

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for extra feeding rations to be issued to farmers for fat stock which, though ready for slaughter, is left on their hands owing to foot-and-mouth restrictions being applied in their district?

Mr. Hudson: Arrangements have already been made for farmers to be able to draw additional supplies of rationed feeding-stuffs when such additional supplies are needed in the circumstances described by the hon. Member.

AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take to put a stop to the attempts made by certain landlords to prevent the creation of agricultural tenancies by granting holdings of 364 days or less; and will he give powers to war agricultural executive committees to terminate any such holdings should they consider such a course desirable?

Mr. Hudson: The grant and acceptance of tenancies of agricultural land for 364 days or less cannot be prevented, but it in any particular case it appears that the holding of land on so short a tenancy is detrimental to food production, I shall be glad to consider, in consultation with the County War Agricultural Executive Committee, whether the powers already available to those committees under the Defence Regulations should be exercised in order to ensure occupation of the land by a suitable tenant for a period not less than that of the present emergency.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the executive officers appointed to the county committees of the Women's Land Army have had the training and experience necessary for such important posts; and whether he will obtain the views of the various chairmen of committees thereon?

Mr. Hudson: The responsible officer of the Women's Land Army in each administrative area for England and Wales is the county or area secretary. In general, I am satisfied that Women's Land Army secretaries are adequately qualified to carry out their duties.

Mr. Woodburn: The Question asked whether the Minister is prepared to consult chairmen of committees to see whether they are satisfied. Is he aware that some of the officers who have been appointed to these positions are quite unfit for them and that great dissatisfaction is caused in some areas?

Mr. Hudson: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will look into the matter.

CARTED-STAG HUNTING.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider prohibiting hunting of carted stags in view of the cruelty inflicted and the fact that the only damage to crops, etc., is caused by the hunters?

Mr. Hudson: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it was not before the war, and is not now, an offence to hunt carted stags. I have no information that appreciable damage is done to crops or food production by stag hunting.

Mr. Leslie: Can nothing be done to prevent this cruel, brutal thing, which is so contrary to the idea of real sport?

Mr. Hudson: It is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary.

Mr. Leslie: I put the Question down to the Home Secretary, but it was transferred to the Minister of Agriculture.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health (1) the number of married couples who made application for supplementary pensions in Northumberland; how many received supplementary pensions; and what is the average amount paid the recipients;
(2) the number of single pensioners who made application for a supplementary pension in the county of Northumberland; how many received supplementary pensions; and what is the average amount paid to the recipients?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I regret that this information is not available.

RENTS, NORTH DEVON.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware

that small houses in North Devon which were let pre-war at 7s. to 10s. per week are now being offered at 30s. per week, payable quarterly in advance, plus rates and interior repairs; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this form of profiteering?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not received any report that excessive rents are being charged in North Devon. But if the hon. Member can let me have further details, I will at once examine them. I am having careful investigation made into all cases of this kind in consultation with the local authorities, who have power under the Rent Restriction Acts to take legal action, and I have requested local authorities to take proceedings in appropriate cases.

MEDICINAL HERBS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Health, whether he anticipated the shortage of imported medicines by arranging with the Board of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission last autumn to plant medicinal herbs, and with what results for the coming year; and what other steps did he take after being warned last year of the probable shortage by Members of this House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As stated in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Gledhill) on 1st August last, steps had then been taken to encourage the cultivation of the more important plants. This action is being continued in collaboration with manufacturers of pharmaceutical products and growers in order to increase production of certain herbs which can usefully be grown in this country. I am not aware that for the purpose of manufacture of medicinal preparations considered to be essential in war-time there is any serious shortage.

Mr. Liddall: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any details of the results?

Mr. MacDonald: I will send them to the hon. Member. They are too many to be given in answer to a Question.

LICENSEES, EVACUATION AREAS (RELIEF).

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any statement concerning the posi-


tion of licensees in an evacuation area who have been hard-hit as a result of the war; and what steps the Government proposes to take to mitigate such hardship?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I have approved in principle the suggestion that licensees whose trade has suffered considerably as a result of the war should be afforded some relief in regard to Liquor Licence Duty, and this matter is being discussed with the representatives of the interests affected.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, as part of the post-war reconstruction policy, he will take steps to ascertain whether the strain of examinations and preparations on persons between their 14th and 22nd years, desirous of entering the higher grades of the Civil Service, tends in any appreciable degree to engender cerebral apathy and loss of initiative or willingness to accept responsibility?

Captain Crookshank: As and when open recruitment for the Civil Service is resumed, every endeavour will be made to ensure that the method of appointment secures candidates of the desired calibre, but I doubt whether an attempted inquiry of the kind suggested would be practicable or would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Liddall: If my right hon. and gallant Friend doubts whether it would serve a useful purpose, will he at any rate try it?

Captain Crookshank: It is because I do not think it is worth doing that I do not propose to do it.

OLD BUILDING, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in deciding that the old building between St. Patrick Square and Buccleuch Street has not sufficient architectural or historic interest to justify preservation, His Majesty's inspectors of ancient monuments were consulted; whether the neighbours were given any opportunity of expressing their opinion as to preservation; and by whose neglect the fabric is in its present condition?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Representations by neighbours for the building's preservation were considered by the corporation before they decided to demolish it. The present condition of the fabric is due to its age and to the settlement of its front walls which, I am informed, renders reconstruction impracticable.

Mr. Hannah: Are not the Government seriously concerned at the way in which the Council of Edinburgh is pulling down, one after another, so many old buildings that give that city special character?

Mr. Westwood: The Corporation of Edinburgh gave full consideration to the petition that was presented. This building was erected in the seventeenth century. The Corporation got an improvement order in 1930, and as the property was acquired for demolition purposes in order to carry through an improvement, the question of maintenance did not arise.

Mr. Hannah: Do not other cities manage to keep their ancient monuments?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

EMERGENCY ARRANGEMENTS.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether, in the event of an attempt at invasion of this country by the enemy, any special arrangements have been made for the provision of food in country districts while a partial or complete reservation of roads and transport facilities for troop movements is in operation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): Yes, Sir.

SAUSAGES.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, as a result of Circular C/3/Z/653, general butchers using less than one ton of boneless meat per week must cease the manufacture of sausages and are thereby placed in an inferior position to larger firms; and whether he will consider an early modification of this requirement?

Major Lloyd George: General butchers who do not receive allocations of manufacturing meat as Group 1 meat manufacturers are entitled to an allowance of carcase meat for the manufacture of sausages and other meat products of 2½ per cent. of the value of their buying permits. The revised arrangements set out in the circular mentioned by my hon. Friend for the classification of general butchers as Group 1 meat manufacturers, had to be made owing to the limited supplies of manufacturing meat, some of which has now to be diverted to the pork butchers to compensate them for their loss of sales of fresh pork which are now restricted to general butchers. These revised arrangements have been generally approved by the Ministry's consultative conference of the retail meat trade and the advisory committee on meat manufactures. Both of these bodies include representatives of the national organisations of butchers.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the effect of this circular is that many family butchers are now unable to obtain sausages for their customers, while grocery shops in the neighbourhood have plenty for sale?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Woods: Is the Minister aware that in many areas, what are described as "general butchers" are, in fact, the main pork butchers in the area and have the largest and most efficient meat manufacturing plants, and that the present arrangement which discriminates between pork butchers and general butchers puts runny general butchers in a disadvantageous position?

OATMEAL.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that some shopkeepers do not sell coarse oatmeal because there is no profit on its sale; whether he is aware of the evidence given before the Food Control Committee, Guildford, about the matter; and what action he intends taking to get the course oatmeal in shops for sale?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend has no reason to believe that shopkeepers

in general are failing to stock coarse oatmeal or are dissatisfied with the margin of profit on its sale. The case referred to has not yet come to my notice but I am making inquiries, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

BOMBED PREMISES (RENTS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Attorney-General when the committee inquiring into the question of the payment of rents for bombed premises will present their report?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The existing legislation dealing with this matter is contained in the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act. The Government are considering whether this Act requires amendment on the point raised in the question and also in the light of the War Damage Bill at present before Parliament. The matter is being considered by Ministers and their advisers, but I am unable to say when the Government will be in a position to announce their decisions. The importance of these questions is fully realised.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possiblity of handing over the whole organisation for the supply of food and clothing parcels to our men in Germany to the American Red Cross?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): No, Sir.

Sir A. Knox: Has this idea been given serious consideration? Is it not worth serious consideration to enable these parcels to be sent direct to Marseilles, without the present delay?

Mr. Law: No, Sir; I do not think it would have that effect, and I do not think it would be any advantage at this stage.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as in the six months July to December, 1940, out of the 491,508 food parcels and 23,162 clothing parcels despatched by the Red Cross from this country only one in four of the food parcels and one in 20 of the clothing parcels reached Germany, he will indicate where the bulk of these parcels


now lies, and what prospect there is of rescuing them for our men in Germany?

Mr. Law: In making his calculations, my hon. and gallant Friend has ignored the very large number of parcels in transit from this country. It must be remembered that it takes from eight to 12 weeks for a parcel to reach Germany, and a corresponding period for the notification of its receipt at the camps to arrive here. In any case, as my right hon. Friend explained to the Rouse on Tuesday, the Government and the British Red Cross are doing everything they can to expedite the delivery of parcels, and there is evidence to show that parcels are now arriving in the camps in far larger quantities than before.

Sir A. Knox: Does my hon. Friend realise that this question is founded on the reply given by the Secretary of State for War on 22nd January, and that these numbers are those of parcels that were handed over by the Red Cross and of those that crossed the German frontier in the six months ended 31st December?

Mr. Law: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend has misinterpreted the reply. He perhaps saw in the table that in December, say, 150,000 parcels were collected from the. Red Cross and in the same month only 81,000 arrived in Germany. I imagine that he has put the two figures together. The 81,000 should not be related to the 150,000 which left in December, but to the 96,000 which left in October.

Sir A. Knox: In spite of that, is it not true that more than half these parcels do not reach Germany at all? Where are they?

Mr. Law: I do not think that there is any evidence to show that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men taken into the Army, either voluntarily or under the Military Service Acts, since 1st January, 1939, have been discharged as unfit for further service owing to wounds and sickness, respectively; in what categories the latter men had been enlisted; how many of them have received pensions; and whether any steps have been

taken to afford them special facilities for re-entry into suitable civil employment?

Mr. Law: I do not think it would be desirable to publish the figures asked for in the first part of the Question, and I could not obtain the information asked for in the second and third parts without very considerable detailed research. As regards the last part, my hon. Friend will be aware of the provisions of the relevant military service Acts regarding reinstatement in civil employment. The provision of vocational training for persons injured by enemy action is under active consideration.

Mr. Martin: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this matter affects not only men injured by enemy action but a large number discharged after a few months in the Army owing to disease said to have been previously latent but hitherto unsuspected; that they are often unable to follow their former employment and are consequently drifting into blind alley employment; and will he take this matter up with the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Law: Certainly, I will take it up with the Minister of Labour.

HOME GUARD.

Captain Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has given his approval to members of the Home Guard voluntarily undertaking fire-watching duties at their place of business, as the Government have exempted them from such duty and as they are already liable to be called upon to help the police and fire brigade in case of need and in a state of emergency to be called upon to undertake military duties; and, if injured or killed while voluntarily undertaking such duty, for what compensation would they or their families rank?

Mr. Law: Members of the Home Guard have been exempted from enrolment for fire-protection duties because these duties may have to be performed at the same time as existing duties of the Home Guard, but the regulations are not intended to prevent a member of the Home Guard undertaking voluntary fire-prevention duty in his capacity as a citizen. Members of the Home Guard injured or killed while undertaking the duties voluntarily would not be eligible for compensation on the Home Guard scales as they would fall to be dealt with under the


Ministry of Pensions Scheme of compensation in the same way as Civil Defence volunteers undertaking these duties.

COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a widespread feeling that the basis of the present cost-of-living index is out of date and particularly unsatisfactory in wartime; and whether a new basis will now be adopted following the recent family budget inquiry?

Mr. Assheton: The publication of the information given in the budgets obtained is not yet completed. When this has reached a more advanced stage my right hon. Friend proposes to consider the whole question in consultation with the Advisory Committee which was appointed in connection with this inquiry.

AIR-RAID CASUALTIES (FUNERAL GRANTS AND ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the widow of a man who lost both his legs in the last war and was killed in an air raid on 3rd October, 1940, has been refused the funeral grant of £7 10s. and the temporary allowance of £2 10s. a week for 10 weeks and has been granted only 225. 6d. weekly pension for herself but nothing for her son aged 15, now attending a technical school, on the grounds that her husband's death occurred before 24th December; and will he take steps to make possible the payment of the funeral grant and the temporary allowance when the air-raid casualties took place before 24th December?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The concessions referred to were not intended to be retrospective to the extent of affecting payments already made or expenses met otherwise before 24th December. I am glad to inform the hon. Member that consideration is being given to the question whether allowances in respect of children should be extended beyond the present limit of 15 years in this type of case.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is quite unjust that there should be this discrimination in the treatment of the dependants of those who were killed in air raids before 24th

December and afterwards? Is it not fair to go back to the beginning of the war?

Sir W. Womersley: There must be a datum line to work from. Hon. Members will realise the difficulty of dealing with all these cases. I am not in a position to make any promise on this matter at all, but I will give it consideration.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not do what is right and just?

Mr. Lipson: If I put down a Question in a week's time, will my hon. Friend say whether he is prepared to make it retrospective to the beginning of the war?

Sir W. Womersley: I think hon. Members will realise that that question raises an issue far beyond anything that I can decide.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about forthcoming Business?

The Prime Minister: On the first and second Sitting Days we shall take the War Damage Bill. We have already had five days in Committee on the War Damage Bill, and good progress has been made. With a continuation of the helpful attitude displayed by the Committee, I think it may be assumed that this stage will be completed on the second Sitting Day. Also, on the first Sitting Day, it will he necessary for us to ask the House to pass the Report stages of the Votes of Credit and, on the second Sitting Day, all stages of a Consolidated Fund Bill to give legal authority for the issue of the money.
On the third Sitting Day, Second Reading of the Determination of Needs Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards Thursday's Business, in view of the fact that the Determination of Needs Bill involves two items of substantial importance, not necessarily related, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give more than one day for its consideration?

The Prime Minister: The House is aware that we have yet to finish the War Damage Bill and that there is a large amount of essential financial business to


be done before Easter. There will be opportunities for debate upon the remaining stages of the Determination of Needs Bill, and as additional time for the Second Reading can be found only at the expense of other essential business, I do not think that I can readily agree to the proposal.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the House has been waiting for the Bill since long before Christmas and that millions of people are involved in the Bill, to whom it is as important as is the War Damage Bill to Members of this House? Ought there not to be greater opportunity of discussing the general principle of the Bill than just a few hours? In this part of the House there is the feeling that more time ought to be given to the discussion of the Second Reading.

The Prime Minister: The fact that there has been delay is nobody's fault. The inevitable delay in introducing it makes it all the more urgent that the Bill should get through. The Committee stage is that on which it will be possible for hon. Members to place their practical impress on the Bill to fit it for the emergencies for which it was designed.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there is great feeling about the Bill among old age pensioners and their friends, and that, unless we can get discussion that allows expression to that feeling and prepares the way for the acceptance of Amendments, the Committee stage may become a formality in which the Committee merely votes against Amendments designed to correct some of the weaknesses of the Bill? I suggest that a vote be taken on this question of the Second Reading, as many Members would like to take part in that discussion.

Sir I. Albery: Will it be possible to have a general Debate on finance before the introduction of the next Budget?

The Prime Minister: Very considerable excursions may be made into that sphere during the discussion upon the Votes of Credit.

Mr. Loftus: Is it not agreed that this discussion will be mainly upon the Ministry of Information and that finance will therefore be largely excluded?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter of agreement and is not governed by the Rules of Order.

SERVICE MEMBERS OF PARLIA- MENT (PRESUMPTION OF DEATH).

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have considered the position which has arisen through the existence of vacancies in respect of Members of this House gazetted as missing on active Service and afterwards presumed to be dead, and whether you can state what procedure should be adopted in deciding whether or not writs should be issued to fill such vacancies?

Mr. Speaker: The question which the hon. Gentleman raises is one to which I have been giving consideration. It is a question which does not appear to have arisen in the course of the last war, and it must therefore be decided without the assistance of precedent. I have caused inquiries to be made as to the procedure which is adopted by the Service Departments before the names of persons are gazetted in the casualty lists as presumed to have been killed on active Service, and I am satisfied that all precautions are taken to ensure that such entries are not made until there is no longer any reason, unfortunately, to doubt that presumption corresponds with fact. It seems to me, therefore, that the House might accept a notification in the casualty lists that one of its Members is presumed to have been killed on active Service as sufficient evidence of the existence of a vacancy in the seat of that Member through his death. But, in view of the fact that some element of doubt, however slight, must persist about such cases, and in view, further, of the obvious difficulties that might arise if such doubt proved in a particular case to be justified, I feel it my duty to give Members an opportunity of thinking over what is really a new departure in our practice, before I decide to put it into effect. I propose, therefore, to wait for a week, during which any Member who has any objection to raise or suggestion to make with regard to this matter may communicate with me. If, by the end of that period, I have received no such objection or suggestion, I will assume that Members generally are in agreement with the procedure which I have outlined,


and I will make a further statement to the House, proposing that this procedure be put into operation as from that date.

Mr. Bevan: This is a very important matter affecting the House of Commons as such. Would it be possible for means to be found of conveying to Members the way in which the War Office verifies this information? We could then form a fairly exact impression as to whether any improvement could be made in the form of the investigation. A week's delay is of no importance to us in this matter, unless we know the methods of verifying the information. Can we have from you, Sir, something as to how the information is verified?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider that matter.

Mr. Mander: Does your Ruling cover, or is it intended to cover, cases such as that of the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin Division (Colonel Baldwin-Webb), who was lost at sea? How would you propose to deal with cases of that kind?

Mr. Speaker: That case would not be covered.

THE LATE LORD LLOYD.

The Prime Minister: The House will have learned with sorrow of the loss, not only that His Majesty's Government, but our country and the whole Empire, have sustained in the sudden and unexpected death of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and newly-chosen Leader of the House of Lords. To me the loss is particularly painful. Lord Lloyd and I have been friends for many years and close political associates during the last 12 years. We championed several causes together which did not command the applause of large majorities; but it is just in that kind of cause, where one is swimming against the stream, that one learns the worth and quality of a comrade and friend.
The late Lord Lloyd was a man of high ability. He had energy, he had industry; and these were spurred throughout his life by a consuming desire to serve the country and uphold the British name. He had travelled far and had acquired an immense mass of special knowledge, particularly knowledge of Egypt, East Africa, Arabia and India. He was deeply

versed in the affairs of the unhappy countries in the South-East of Europe, which now lie under the shadow of approaching danger and misery. In all these spheres, his opinion and advice were of the highest value. Having served under Lawrence in the Desert War, he had acquired a great love for the Arab race, and he devoted a large part of his life to their interest. His name is known and his death will be mourned in wide circles of the Moslem world. When we remember that the King-Emperor is the ruler of incomparably more Mohammedan subjects than any other Prince of Islam, we may, from this angle, measure the serious nature of the loss we have sustained.
George Lloyd fought for his country on land and in the air. As honorary commodore of an air squadron, he learned to fly a Hurricane aeroplane and obtained a pilot's certificate when almost 60 years of age, thus proving that it is possible for a man to maintain in very high efficiency eye and hand, even after a lifetime of keen intellectual work. He was a very good friend of the Royal Air Force, and, in recent years, was President of the Navy League. His was the voice which, as far back as 1934, moved a resolution at the National Union of Conservative Associations which led that body to urge upon the then Government a policy of immediate rearmament. Although an Imperialist and, in some ways, an authoritarian, he had a profound, instinctive aversion from Nazism. He foresaw from the beginning the danger of Hitler's rise to power and above all to armed power, and he lived and acted during the last four or five years under a sense of the rapidly growing danger to this country.
For two long and critical periods, covering together nearly 10 years, he represented the Crown, as Governor of Bombay, or as High Commissioner in Egypt. His administration of the Bombay Presidency was at once firm and progressive, and the Lloyd reservoir across the Indus River in Sind, which is the base of the largest irrigation scheme in the world and irrigates an area, formerly a wilderness, about the size of Wales—this great barrage, the Lloyd barrage, as it is called, is a monument which will link his name to the prosperity of millions yet unborn, who will see around them villages, townships, temples and fertile fields where all was formerly naught but savage scrub and


sand. Lord Lloyd took over the High Commissionership of Egypt in the dark hour after the murder of Sir Lee Stack. He restored, during his tenure, a very great measure of stability and tranquillity to the Nile Valley, and he achieved this without violence or bloodshed. He gained the good will of important elements in Egypt without sacrificing British interests and our relations with Egypt have progressively improved since those days, though other hands and other points of view have played their part in that. If he, like other British statesmen, promised to protect the people of the Egyptian Delta from foreign aggression, he lived long enough to see all the obligations and undertakings of Great Britain to the Egyptian people brilliantly vindicated by the decisions of war.
When I was called upon to form the present Administration, in the heat of the great battle in France, it was a comfort to me to be able to reach out to so trusted a friend. Although his views, like perhaps some of mine, were very often opposed to the Labour party, I say, with the full assent of all his Labour colleagues, that he gained their respect and confidence and their regard in all those trying months, and that they found many deep points of agreement with him of which they had not previously been aware. The departure of Lord Halifax to the United States made it necessary to choose a new Leader for the House of Lords on behalf of the Government, and Lord Lloyd was selected for that important task. This gave him a great deal of satisfaction, and in the evening, two hours before his death, he conversed with others of his friends about the future work which lay before him in an expanding field and spoke with hopefulness and satisfaction about his ability to discharge it. Then, very suddenly, he was removed from us by death.
I would like to think, as one likes to think of every man in this House and elsewhere, that he died at the apex, at the summit, of his career. It is sometimes said that good men are scarce. It is perhaps because the spate of events with which we attempt to cope and strive to control have far exceeded, in this modern age, the old bounds, that they have been swollen up to giant proportions, while, all the time, the stature and intellect of man remain unchanged. All the more, there-

fore, do we feel the loss of this high-minded and exceptionally gifted and experienced public servant. I feel I shall only be discharging my duties to the House when I express, in their name, our sympathy for his widow, who has shared so many of his journeys and all the ups and downs of his active life, and who, in her grief, may have the comfort of knowing what men and women of all parties think and feel about the good and faithful servant we have lost.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I would wish, in a few sentences, to say to the Prime Minister that he has expressed the feeling of all the House in the tribute which he has paid to Lord Lloyd—a tribute which was worthy of the man on account of whom it was uttered. The Prime Minister has spoken with the knowledge of personal friendship and has said things which, I think, it was good for the House to know. As he said, Lord Lloyd was separated from some of my hon. Friends by wide differences of political philosophy in certain directions, but not, as a matter of fact, in all directions, as we have seen now that a time of national peril has arrived. I also have heard from Labour members of the Government that, in working with Lord Lloyd in our great cause, they found that he had qualities which they had not previously thought to exist. He was a controversial figure, but he was none the worse for that, because indeed, in times of peace, with real issues, controversy is the very life blood of our Parliamentary and democratic system, and it very often happens that in time of war it is to these controversial figures that the nation turns.
Moreover, we all recognise that this faculty of giving utter devotion to public life, almost comparable to the religious devotion that some men have, is one of the reasons for our national strength. Even before the war began, some of us discovered that this faculty of devotion in the case of Lord Lloyd was not given merely to controversial issues but to issues on which he had the support of all of us, and very particularly to the welfare and the fate of our merchant seamen. It is the totality of a man such as that that we sum up in this House on this occasion. May I also express to Lady Lloyd and to the family the great sympathy that we feel in this House?

Sir Percy Harris: May I be allowed to join in the tribute so eloquently paid by his great friend and colleague, the Prime Minister, to this distinguished statesman? There is something of a tragedy about this death just at a time when he succeeded to the great position of Leader of the House of Lords, a post which he was never able to occupy. I first remember him many years ago in the last war, when he then showed those remarkable qualities of energy and courage to which the Prime Minister has referred. As the Prime Minister has said, he showed those qualities in his work, particularly in his work in India and Egypt. I and many others will associate them with his great work not yet made public, his great work for the British Council. He brought to that work all the qualities of imagination and faith which have already produced useful results. I believe that his firm belief in the mission of the British people in their literature and their Parliamentary institutions alone would provide him with a permanent monument. I think that the Prime Minister has well expressed all our feelings, and, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I would like to be associated with the Prime Minister's expression of sympathy to his widow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1940.

(EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): May I suggest to you, Sir Dennis, that we should take the two Votes of Credit together? I have consulted with some of my hon. Friends who are interested in this matter, and I understand that they agree to this course if we have your assent.

The Chairman: It is a matter for the Committee to decide whether to assent to the proposal. I have not the least objection to that course being taken if the Committee give general assent. I take it the Committee assents.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think it would be a very sensible plan.

Sir K. Wood: To-day we are asking for agreement on two Votes of Credit. The first is a Supplementary Vote for £600,000,000 for the current financial, year, and the second is a Vote for £1,000,000,000 for the coming financial year, 1941–42. I will deal first with the Supplementary Vote for the current year. The Committee will remember that in October last, when I asked for a further Vote for £1,000,000,000, I said that on the basis of the average rate of expenditure from the Vole of Credit then prevailing of some £64,000,000 a week, this Vote would not carry us beyond the early days

of March. But that weekly rate of £64,000,000 has, in fact, risen with our increasing war effort, and, taking the figures in the last five weeks, it now averages some £73,000,000, and the amount for which I am now asking, with some margin for contingencies, should cover us until the end of the present financial year.
War is always costly, and this war is the costliest and most expensive war in our history. If the Committee agree to a Vote of £600,000,000, this, as can be seen from the statement on the printed Estimate, will bring our total grants for Votes of Credit in the current financial year to £3,300,000,000. In the last war the largest sum granted was £2,500,000,000, in 1918, though this was not all spent owing to the conclusion of the war in that year. The largest sum actually spent was some £2,432,000,000 in 1917. We have, therefore, already passed the highest amount of expenditure in the last war, and the pace is still growing. The other comparison that I would make is in relation to our growing rate of expenditure in the present war. A year ago our daily rate of expenditure was £5,000,000, £4,000,000 of which was for the Fighting Services. To-day that daily rate has risen to some £10,500,000; £8,000,000 for the Fighting Services and £2,500,000 for other war services, such as the outlays of the Ministries of Shipping, Food and Home Security. Our daily expenditure has therefore more than doubled since a year ago, and has increased by nearly £1,500,000 a day since I asked for the Supplementary Vote in October last.
I cannot now forecast what the rate of expenditure will be in the early months of the next financial year, and I have again asked for the sum of £1,000,000,000 because it is the largest sum I can reasonably ask the Committee to grant at one time. Apart altogether from my point of view as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would say, in connection with the tremendous figures I have given, that they are indeed striking proof of the country's determination to prosecute the war with all its might and with all energy and speed.
I have spoken again to-day of vast sums. It is difficult to convey in words what they and their implications mean to us. These two Votes of Credit are only


available for our war services. There are other considerable services of the State: the service of the Debt and the Civil Votes, including our social services, and when we add that expenditure to that on the war we are now spending approximately at the rate of £12,250,000 a day. These are vast and stupendous sums. They have already involved heavy burdens and sacrifices, and they must mean still more. We have not only to consider our immediate vital interests, but also to plan in such a way that we can emerge from this conflict with reasonable prospects for the future and with decent conditions and tolerable lives for the people of this country. All I can say to-day is that all these are, of course, matters for grave and anxious consideration in relation to the next Budget proposals that are now not far distant.
In this connection and in the light of the figures which I have just quoted, I would like to say a word to the direct taxpayers who contribute to the Income Tax, Surtax, National Defence Contribution and Excess Profits Tax. The great bulk of these taxes are payable in the present quarter. I am glad to say that many taxpapers have already paid what is due, and many have even paid in advance. To those who have not yet paid I would make a special appeal for early payment; however difficult or unpleasant payment may be, these taxes are necessary, and our determination to carry the war through to victory can certainly be shown with the readiness with which we pay them. Let me also say this: it is imperative that these great sums shall be well spent, and that the greatest effort should be made to check extravagance and waste, so that not a penny should be thrown away. The House and the country are indebted to the Committee and Sub-committees on National Expenditure for all that they have done and are doing. There is, I know it myself, the great urge and necessity of speed and increased output in connection with the war effort, but there is a danger of waste and extravagance, and to check this is not only a considerable responsibility of the Government, but of every one of us so far as lies in our power. The other day the "Times" said something which would commend itself to most of us. It is this:—
The strongest feelings are aroused not by the amount we spend but by the amount we continue to waste.

Many criticisms are no doubt based upon misunderstandings and imperfect knowledge, but certainly some are much better founded, and I would only say that I recognise the special responsibility of the Treasury in this matter, and that we shall continue to examine and investigate all complaints brought to our notice, in consultation with the Department concerned.
Let me add another thing. It is also imperative that civilian consumption should continue to be curtailed and that every penny possible should be saved and lent to the State. The National Savings Movement has done splendid work. In the first 12 months of the campaign some £1,140,000,000 was raised by various Government loans and increases in Savings Bank deposits, and for the succeeding eight weeks subscriptions averaged over 26,000,000 a week. These figures are good, but it is vital that they should be exceeded, and I have no doubt, with the higher level of national income which will result from the increasing drive in production and other causes, that they will be considerably increased in the coming year.
I have one other matter to refer to. I will briefly refer to a subject which is a matter of some present discussion, that of an impending danger of inflation. My observations on this, of course, must of necessity be brief, because it is a subject more appropriate to the consideration of the Budget, which, as I have said, will soon be due. We know that war involves a certain increase of prices connected with war conditions and war impediments to production. But inflation is more in the nature of an unhealthy rise of prices over and beyond the necessities of the case. An excessive gap between taxation and savings on the one hand and expenditure on the other is undoubtedly a predisposing cause, and it is often said that the present gap is very great. A superficial study of the figures might support that contention, but, as I was at some pains to point out in my Budget speech last July, we have been able very largely to draw on our outside resources to meet our heavy overseas expenditure, whether in the Empire or in foreign countries, and apart from the savings which individuals patriotically make, there are very large automatic sources of saving which operate in war


but are not available to us in times of peace.
I am certainly claiming that, upon a true analysis, the danger of the so-called gap has been greatly exaggerated. But—I emphasise this—this does not mean that I wish to minimise the danger that prices may rise excessively, for there are other elements in the problem, other sources of danger, that need to be carefully watched. In conclusion, I would give an assurance to the Committee that the Government are very much alive to the whole matter, and will not hesitate to take any practical steps to control the danger should it arise—and it is obviously a subject which can be tackled from several angles. Therefore, with those considerations in mind, I ask the Committee, with confidence, to approve these two Votes. We shall not hesitate to make this necessary provision for the war, nor shall we shrink from carrying any of the burdens which it may entail.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before us vast figures, and has called upon the Committee to support him and the Government on these Votes of Credit. I do not think there will be any two opinions here as to our action in that regard. The Committee wills victory; and he who wills the end wills the means. One of the means of victory is finance. Therefore, I have no doubt that the Committee will unanimously support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his proposals. But I should like to say a few words about these vast figures. I want to put them into a shape in which they will mean something tangible to us and to the country as a whole. When the war started, the total expenditure of the State on the war and on the civil requirements was roughly one-third of the total national income. To-day, it is practically certain that that expenditure exceeds one-half of the total national income. The Chancellor's figures, worked out annually, show that we are spending, at the present moment, at the rate of over £4,000,000,000 a year. I think that an optimistic estimate of the total income of the country would not put it much, if at all, above £8,000,000,000; so we have now reached an expenditure by the State of more than half the total national income on the prosecution of the war and on those other

civil services to which the Chancellor referred.
It follows that the civil consumption—by that, I mean consumption left in the hands of private individuals—has fallen from two-thirds to something below half the national income. But it does not follow that the amount available for private civil consumption has been cut down in that proportion. Indeed, if we were to judge merely in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, the amount has probably remained the same, at round about £4,000,000,000. Where previously the total income of the country was in the neighbourhood of £6,000,000,000, of which the Government took £2,000,000,000, leaving £4,000,000,000, now the total national income is in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000,000, of which the Government are taking a little over £4,000,000,000, leaving £4,000,000,009 in the hands of private individuals. But if we assumed that the amount available for private consumption had not, in effect, fallen, we should be painting far too rosy a picture. In the first place, we have the very considerable change in the value of money which has taken place; and then, there are other factors to take into account. Still more, if we assumed that for the future we were to be in the same position, we should be departing further and further from reality. The fact is that two things have been taking place.
Before the war began, there was a great deal of what I will call slack—a very large amount of unemployment and under-employment, both of persons and of capital. Now, at last, as a result of the war, we have taken up a very large part of that slack, and there is very little more to be taken up. As the war goes on and the expenditure by the State further increases, we cannot expect any further opportunity of expansion of the real national income, as distinct from its money value. In addition, we are living to a large extent on our hump. That is why this country has neither experienced so much shortage as some people expected nor faced the inflation that some economists prophesied in the early stages of the war. We cannot, in either of those respects, look forward to the same success in future. The hump, after all, representing a reduction in variage stages, leading up to a final reduction in consumption goods, was of limited amount.


The time must come when that hump is finished; and we are approaching that time to-day. As I have said, we have taken up a great deal of the slack. There may be a little left—there is a reservoir of labour: a number of women, and some men, who can be taken into the labour field—but, broadly speaking, we are approaching the time when the reserves will be all enmeshed in the productive effort, and when no further increase will be possible.
It follows that we can expect very little increase in the real national income, and that we shall then be faced with the difficulties that were prophesied earlier. But there is one great thing that we may hope to get that will be a set off against that. Up till now we have had this cash-and-carry principle with the United States, and though the resources for that have largely been found on our part out of capital rather than out of income, it has been a drain upon our resources. If the Measure which they are adopting in the United States is carried into law, as we have every reason to hope and believe that it will be, that will, at any rate for the time, relieve us of our immediate concern of paying for these supplies. I am quite sure that I am expressing not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of all the Members of the Committee and of the country our deep sense of gratitude for the generosity which that proposal involves, and we hope very much that the generous attitude of the President will find expression in Congress in carrying that Measure to a conclusion.
But that will only take us a certain way. It is very important, as the Chancellor has already said, that we must not waste a single penny, but when we have done all that, it will still mean that, if we are to avoid inflation, we must tax and save to the utmost limit of our ability. That is a lesson both for the Chancellor himself and for us in this Committee, and for people up and down the country. The lesson for the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one which we have often put before him, that he shall be bold in his plans that he is now making, or will be making at an early date for the Budget speech which he will be making later. Much as the people of this country dislike being taxed, much as they have a difficulty in meeting the demands which the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes

upon them, and much as are the hardships which are inflicted, the people of this country, as I said at the beginning, have the will to victory and the will to means, and they are prepared to face the financial burden with the same courage and determination with which they are facing the other dangers and troubles which this war is bringing upon them.
There is an injunction upon the people of this country that those who are in any way in a position to do so must save not only on the present splendid scale, but on an increasing scale, because if the Chancellor of the Exchequer withholds his hand from taxation, and if the public do not save on a greater scale, then this inflation trouble will come upon us with all the disadvantages it involves and with all the haphazard methods of taxation it brings about. And there is no hokey-pokey by which you can avoid having to pay for the war at the time, no financial device, no theoretical methods by which you can get out of having to face the real physical facts of the situation. Therefore, the Committee, I believe, will support this Vote of Credit, and they will bear in mind that these vast sums will involve grave sacrifices in the future, but they will bear them in the spirit in which the country is facing all the other difficulties to uphold the liberties of the people of these islands and of the world as a whole.

Mr. Graham White: When I first received these two documents from the Vote Office, I was struck with the reflection that in all probability so large a bill had never been presented before in such a very small number of words, and I was rather relieved to hear it said to-day that £1,000,000,000 was considered to be the largest single sum that could be presented to the House. But when we remember that it is not the Budget figure but merely one milestone towards the Budget, we realise what a distance we have travelled since the days before the war, when the prospect of a total Budget for the year of £1,000,000,000 struck one of the right hon. Gentleman's immediate predecessors with feelings bordering upon dismay, which, incidentally, were shared by the public at large. It is a further remarkable circumstance that to-day not only will these figures be passed by common consent, but, I understand, also by


the common consent of the Committee, we do not propose to discuss them at any great length, but to devote ourselves to some consideration of Departmental matters. But, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, what happens in this way to-day does not mean that the country is not concerned about what is going on.
I was glad to hear the words which fell from his lips about the need for proposals for further economy. That is the case. My post is punctuated regularly with selections of pictures from popular papers which are alleged to indicate small items of extravagance, in uniforms and the like, which indicate that the public are alert on these matters and are feeling anxious. But the public have no right, nor indeed, I think, have they the wish, to complain about the growth of expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reminded us that at this time last year our expenditure was at the rate of £5,250,000 a day on war services alone, whereas to-day, including the whole of our expenditure, it amounts to £12,500,000. But at this time last year and at the time of the Budget last year, the public were aghast at the smallness of the figure. Our expenditure was running at the rate of £2,125,000,000 a year, and it was rightly felt that, if that was the figure to be taken as the measure of our war effort, it was utterly inadequate to express the national effort. Therefore, there can be no complaint from the public that the expenditure has risen until it is now running at the rate of something over £4,000,000,000 a year, with the prospect of rising further, provided that our economy is regarded as a whole with both feet of our policy fixed firmly on the ground. By that I mean that our financial and fiscal arrangements in the next Budget will need to be brought into line with the arrangements for manpower and production on which the House has recently conferred.
The Chancellor spoke of the way in which our expenditure has risen since the Budget, and he referred in grave words to the gap which exists between our expenditure and what we receive out of current revenue plus loans. He did not, however, point out that that gap is steadily growing, and that, whereas we set out with the target in our minds of raising 50 per cent. of our war expenditure by

taxation, that target is a disappearing one. It is my view that no longer is 50 per cent. of our expenditure being raised by taxation, but that the figure is more like 30 or 35 per cent., and that is a matter which must be a challenge to the House of Commons and also to the country. The Chancellor said that these matters would have to receive grave and serious consideration in the Budget, but I would point out that so far as the House and the ordinary Members of Parliament are concerned, when we reach the Budget it is too late to give serious consideration to the criticisms which may be brought forth. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor has already made up his mind on some plan. Probably rightly, he has refrained from making any great forecast. Those without responsibility can be more venturesome and rush in where angels fear to tread. If the national income rises in the same proportion as it has done since the war started—it is probably running now at the rate of some £8,000,000,000 a year—it will expand to not less than £9,000,000,000 during 1941–42 and the expenditure on the same basis would be over £5,000,000,000.
It is quite clear that we shall have a gap, in the absence of fresh methods of raising money, and here may I add that I wish the Chancellor had enlightened us as to whether he is satisfied with the revenue now coming in from the Purchase Tax and the Excess Profits Tax? When every allowance is made for a reasonable increase of revenue on our present basis of taxation this will be a gap of something like £3,400,000,000 to be filled by voluntary savings and other ways. I have the greatest admiration for the work of the voluntary savings scheme, and I am glad to know that some 30 towns will be startting War Weapons Weeks. I hope they will have every success. I think I am right in saving that for the last week in January the total of voluntary savings from all sources was £10,134,000, which is considerably less than the £12,500,000 we are spending per day at the present time. That is a fact which all concerned with the War Savings Movement should get into their minds. Those who have a rising determination to support and forward the movement must have this question in their minds if they look at the future with prudence. The time may yet


come when that principle may have to be fortified by some other method, though whatever that may be no one, of course, can prescribe at this moment.
But certain lessons may be learned from the study of this problem. I very much doubt whether this country has proceeded as far as it ought to have done, and could do, with rationing and price-fixing, and, perhaps with advantage, the rationing of money which an individual should receive. There are many in the country to-day whose incomes have increased as a result of the war, and there can be no injustice whatsoever in requiring them to invest the whole or a portion of their increased income for the benefit of the State. That leads me to emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who said that civilian consumption must be reduced. It is important for every individual to save as much as he possibly can and lend as much as he possibly can. There is another thing he can do, even if he does not feel able to lend every penny. He can at least refrain from spending every penny. It is just as important to refrain from spending as it is to lend. Despite the reduction in the size of our hump, there is still a little bit left, and if that is not done it is quite clear that the public will be raising grave and serious inconveniences for themselves if the process of inflation occurs.
I am concerned about seeing some method devised to fortify voluntary savings. I am quite convinced in my own mind that if we are to go forward with the special bankers' credit which, if my memory serves me right, amounts to some additional £500,000,000 in the current year, that cannot be continued without a very inconvenient rise in prices. In conclusion, I would say to the Chancellor, with all humility, that if he would cast his mind back to the Budget speech of April, 1940, and his special Budget of the Autumn of last year, he will remember the severe taxes imposed at that time, which, he said, would have been severer had it not been necessary to make some allowances for people to change their methods. The result of his levies and taxes was received, not with cries of indignation and dismay at the

heaviness and cruelty of his extortions but with relief at the leniency with which he treated the taxpayer, and it may well be that the public are ready to follow any lead in the region of finance as they have been in other spheres.
It is in the next few weeks, if they have not already been arrived at, that some decisions must be taken which will make it quite certain that we shall not be left with a growing gap between expenditure and tax and loan revenue, to be filled as occasion may serve by methods which can only aggravate our difficulties. People had better be prepared to face a stricter system of rationing in every way and a rationing of expenditure so that we may concentrate the maximum of effort upon the war. I do not know whether it is realised throughout the country that every penny spent needlessly is a direct detraction from our war effort.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Truly, the figures which the Chancellor has put before us to-day are more than stupendous, and he and my hon. Friend opposite have drawn attention to the magnitude of these figures and the importance of the issue which lies before this country if we are to avoid inflation. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the kind reference which he made to the work of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I was told the other day that the Select Committee is the policemen who look after the operations of the Government in the interests of the taxpayers. As we all know, the policeman's lot is not a happy one, and I do not know that he is always particularly popular, but in thanking my right hon. Friend for his tribute, it is right that I should say that the Members of the House who work in the Select Committee do an immense amount of public work, almost unending in its character and unlimited in its scope, such is the nature of the tremendous war expenditure that has to be examined. I should like to return the compliment, very genuinely and wholeheartedly, by saying that we who, in the Select Committee, have to bring so many things to the notice of the Treasury are glad to be able to feel that we not only work in complete harmony with the Departments and the Treasury in particu-


lar, but that they examine with care the suggestions which we put before them.
I was especially interested in the latter part of my right hon. Friend's remarks, when he spoke on the question of how the country is to avoid inflation. I agree with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) that it was not perhaps unexpected by some of us that the public's reaction to the Chancellor's last Budget statement was one of relief and, I would add, almost one of surprise that they had not been further taxed. I think this must have been a source of satisfaction to my right hon. Friend, for it showed that the people of this country fully realise that the war has to be paid for. Of course, the problem which my right hon. Friend has to face is not only how much taxation can be imposed, but how much the pubic can bear. It is a question of balancing what is the highest sum that can be taken in taxation against the amount which industry and individual earnings can bear. I think the Treasury have also to be congratulated upon the rate at which they have been able to raise money. From that point of view, this war is very much cheaper than the last one, and although there is this enormous deficit, which the Chancellor has not made any pretence of disguising, we are able to cover some of it by measures which in themselves are satisfactory from the war standpoint, and perhaps more satisfactory than any of us expected a year ago. However, this does not alter the fact that the gap is still an enormous one. It is a gap which no amount of short-term borrowing, no amount of making use of the money that is relent to us from the Dominions, and no amount of further subscriptions to Treasury bonds, will cover. The extent of that gap is the measure of possible inflation, and although my right hon. Friend was right in drawing attention to the fact that there has been considerable exaggeration from time to time of the total figures which represent the gap we have to cover, nevertheless the difference, whatever it is, is a very large sum and is the measure of possible inflation.
Since the war began, wholesale prices have risen by 45 per cent. By means of rationing, retail prices have been kept down to a rise of 25 per cent. Last year, wages nominally rose by only 12 per cent., but that rate does not take into

consideration any of the bonuses or extra overtime earnings that have resulted from the war. The question is, how can we avoid inflation? I believe that gradually the people of this country are beginning to realise that that is tile real danger which faces us. There is now less chance of people being led astray, as alas they so often have been in the past, by the fact that they are earning more money. Wages will never overtake the rise in prices if inflation once gets into its stride, and it will be the wage-earners who will suffer first and longest.
It has been said that it is not right to suggest now to my right hon. Friend means by which he could increase taxation, for he alone can judge what is necessary, but at the risk of being accused of anticipating the Debates that will take place on the Budget, I want to refer to the problem that faces us and methods by which it might be met to some extent. I will take, first of all, the Excess Profits Tax. There is no question that that very onerous and in some respects unfair tax was accepted by the House and the country almost without controversy, but equally there is no doubt, as I am sure my right hon. Friend knows better than anybody else, that in some respects that tax falls very heavily and probably to a greater extent than originally foreseen on certain classes of industry, particularly those which in pre-war days were passing through especially difficult times, and also those which have started recently and have had no chance of building up for themselves a reasonable standard of profit. I do not want to detain the Committee by going into that matter at length to-day for it has been dealt with on previous occasions, and I simply suggest to the Chancellor that these are points which I hope he will specially consider if the tax is to be continued.
The Excess Profits Tax affects the profits of companies, industrial concerns, and the like. But all the extra money that is being earned as a result of the war effort does not go into the hands of companies; a good deal of it goes into the hands of private individuals. Is there any reason why the principle of the Excess Profits Tax—whatever may be the rate, which I am not discussing now—should not be extended to private individuals? Is there any reason why a person whose private income benefits as a


result of the war—I emphasize that condition—should not be made to contribute, as do the shareholders in public companies? I realise that it would not be an easy matter to frame such a tax and that there may be considerable difficulties in bringing it into operation. But there is no doubt that there is a number of people within the Income Tax limit who have benefited as a result of the country's war expenditure, and if they can be reached in this way, I see no reason why they should not contribute.
Then there remains the question of those below the Income Tax limit. Do not let us mince matters; we know that there are large numbers of people below the Income Tax level who have benefited as a result of the war. I am well aware, from long experience in this House, that when one moves into this region one is apt at once to be regarded as trying to attack the standard of living of the working man. But I am looking at the matter purely from the point of view of how we are to get money and avoid inflation. I say that there is a source of increased income as a result of the war effort coming into the hands of those below the Income Tax level, and that those receiving it ought to be made to contribute like everyone else. Of course, the Purchase Tax, which hits all classes, is to some extent a measure to deal with that problem, but it deals with it only in a very limited way. I know as well as many other people how wonderfully the people of this country are working at the present time. I know the splendid response there has been to every appeal for further work in support of the war effort— in fact, in some cases the workers have to be saved against themselves. There is no question, to my mind, after an examination of this problem almost daily, that fatigue not only affects the people themselves, but actually retards the progress of the war effort if men or women are driven or drive themselves to work too long hours.
There are difficulties, I admit, in bringing taxation in this form down to the income limits I am dealing with. Firstly, there are cases in which the previous earnings were definitely too low, and, secondly, there are cases where specially arduous work requires and justifies extra wages. But I believe, as a part of the desire we all have to meet the cost of the

war so far as is possible out of income and to avoid inflation, it is essential for the Government to introduce a national wage policy. It must be one which will maintain the workers and their families in good health, and enable them to stand the strain of war. That strain has not grown less; it has become more serious in all classes of the community. Do not let us lack courage in facing that fact, because there is an increasing strain all the time. Where necessary then the financial position of the worker must be improved to fit him for that higher standard, which, I believe, this country, will secure when consumption—real consumption—by the world's population takes place instead of this absorption for war purposes and destruction. The new policy should provide adequate nutrition standards, and this may, in fact, mean a basic rise in the rate of wages. It must give equal results for equal effort and abolish the many inequalities which now prevail. It must allow fully for exceptional effort.

Mr. Loftus: What about children's allowances?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: The hon. Member is taking the words out of my mouth. It means a system of family allowances.
I put these suggestions forward to my right hon. Friend now, because we do not often have an opportunity of discussing these matters. The burden of responsibility which he has to carry is so heavy that if there is anything that any of us can say which will help him, it is, I think, our duty to do so. I anticipate that he will have no better picture to put before us next April, and I wonder if it is possible in any Debates that we may have really to bring it home to the people what this expenditure means to us as a nation. The Chancellor has spoken very clearly to-day and has put a plain statement of the position before the Committee. But I often wonder whether it is possible to get the people fully to realise what the figures mean. The Committee and a certain number of people outside who have been concerned as to the amount of money which can be raised by Income Tax and other taxes, are aware of the position, but I wonder, when the Chancellor speaks as he did to-day of the country spending £12,500,000 a day, whether the public generally realise that that figure is the pre-war equivalent to 2d. or 2½d. on the Income Tax. An addi-


tional 2½d. Income Tax, on the pre-war basis, every day of the year! All the argument and talk we used to have on Budget statements of whether the Income Tax should be raised by 6d. or 3d. belong to a distant past. I hope that the public can be made to realise what the figures mean and how essential it is that they should save.
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said in regard to the work of the National Savings Committee. They have clone splendid work, but what the Government must have is still more of new savings and new money, not money raised by the banks and loaned for the purpose. People must be made to realise what a tremendous problem there is if we are to avoid inflation, and the absolute necessity of obtaining every penny we can by taxation within the limits which the Chancellor considers it in the public interest to impose. We have this gap, and stronger and still stronger rationing may also be necessary in order to enable us to fill it and avoid the greatest danger of all.

Mr. Richards: I think the Debate has already shown that the Committee is very much concerned—every speaker, I think, has emphasised the fact—about the growing gap between revenue and expenditure. I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not do much to reassure us on this fundamental point. I find it rather difficult to explain why Chancellors in their successive statements are so chary to face up to the mounting cost of the war. I have been wondering whether it is due to the experience that we had with our first Vote of Credit. It was voted at the very beginning of the war, and the £500,000,000 was to carry us on till December. In December it was discovered that only £400,000,000 had been expended. I am afraid that is an indication of the mood in which we were waging war in the latter part of 1939. It may be that this has perhaps coloured successive statements which have been made by Chancellors on this question. That represented an expenditure of £3,500,000 a day. By March last it had mounted up to £1,850,000,000, and on the basis of that new expenditure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon as he then was, estimated that our ex-

penditure in 1940–41 would be at the rate of £2,000,000,000.
It is a very curious fact that all these estimates were hopelessly wrong. By October last we were spending at the rate of £3,850,000,000, and we are now spending at the rate of over £4,000,000,000 on the war alone. That is the basic fact that we have to keep in mind, that expenditure is mounting up very rapidly, and the first question that I should like to ask is, Have we any reason to suppose that it is likely to continue to grow? Judging by successive Debates dealing with production, it is obvious that the House is very much concerned about the fact that we have not yet reached our full productive effort, and, if the House has its way—as I have no doubt it will have—the amount of the productive effort is bound to increase; and, if that is the case, the cost of the new productive effort is bound to mount up. Consequently we are spending on war purposes alone at the rate of £4,000,000,000 a year. I presume that in the next year we shall be spending at the rate of £5,000,000,000. That is to say, it will mount up pro rata as it has mounted up, and will mount even more rapidly if the House gets its way with regard to the productive effort. I do not say that the Chancellor can do anything to check that. That would be against the wishes of the House. However carefully he may watch over expenditure, it is the wish of the House that the absolute maximum effort should be made, both in the productive field and in the field of taxation, to meet the terrible ordeal which is facing us.
There is another question which was touched upon by the last speaker, which is much more disconcerting in my opinion, and that is that the costs of the productive effort of the country are mounting up very rapidly. That is to say, it is costing us more than it was a year and a half ago to produce the things we want, and this, of course, is a very serious matter. We have an index of that in rising prices. Everything that is produced to-day costs more than it did a year or two ago. This is a matter of considerable concern to the Chancellor. Actual expenditure is bound to grow, because we are very anxious to maximise our productivity, but the Chancellor ought to see to it that everything is done to reduce the mounting costs, in other words, to keep down prices, so that we


should not pay an excessive amount for the things that are being produced now.
That brings me to the other question. Assuming for the moment that we are spending at the rate of only £4,000,000,000 odd on the war effort, the estimate which was made by the Chancellor last autumn was that he hoped to get £1,360,000,000 from taxation. Since then we have had the Purchase Tax in operation. It has been estimated to bring in something like £115,000,000. On top of that we shall have this year a full year of the Excess Profits Tax. That will possibly bring in another £60,000,000, but even then we are only in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000,000 as against the £4,000,000,000 that is being spent. There comes the gap. The relevant advantages of taxation and borrowing is a very old and a very difficult question. We cannot raise the whole of this by any conceivable system of taxation that the Chancellor can invent. It has been estimated that we could perhaps put another f £100,000,000 on direct taxation, but that would leave us with a gap of something like £3,400,000,000 to find in some other way. Here comes the real difficulty. How is that £3,400,000,000 to be found?
Reference has been made to the admirable work that has been done by the National Savings Committee. There is no need to add my humble tribute to the wonderful work that is being done by that Association. I believe the rate of saving at the moment is something like £100,000,000 a month. You are left with a very considerable balance even then. But investments in war savings are not all taken from real savings. In a great many cases they are transferred from other kinds of savings. Consequently the amount actually saved for the purposes of the war and lent to the Government this year is probably much less than the £1,200,000,000 for which the National Council for Savings is responsible. The rest, of course, has to be borrowed, very largely through the operation of the bankers. The speeches of the chairmen of the various banks which have just been delivered all point to the fact that last year a very considerable amount of increased credit had been granted by the banks. This is the most fruitful source of inflation that can be imagined. The Chancellor really must take this matter

in hand and see that what we get in the way of savings are real savings and not merely bank created credits. This is a fundamental question and it may involve a very serious reorganisation of the financial system of the country. Facing us as an alternative, of course, is an extreme system of rationing. It seems to me that there is no alternative if we carry on in the present way. Though we may push taxation to its extreme limit we are still left with a very horrifying gap and, if that is filled in the way in which it generally is, it will simply mean more inflation, it will mean increasing the cost of the productive effort of the war and will eventually have the effect of depressing the standard of life of the people, which is the one thing that we do not desire to do, particularly at present.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I feared I might find myself speaking today in circumstances of some difficulty because I only learned this morning that it was contemplated that the Debate might be concerned mostly with the Ministry of Information. I am glad that the speeches to which we have listened so far have led the Debate more on to what we might call legitimate grounds. For surely, when we are voting £1,600,000,000 to the Government it is proper that we should discuss finance. It is part of the business of Parliament from time to time to do a little gentle debunking. I venture to suggest that a Vote of Credit is much more the occasion for debunking, say, the capital levy than it is for debunking the demagogues to whom the Minister of Information suffers us to listen on the space-time continuum of the ether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) spoke of trying to bring these figures into some sort of relationship with ordinary life. That project is an ambitious one. For if we were to add another nought to these figures I suggest that, instead of there being only 14 hon. Members in the Chamber, there would be none at all. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) made some pertinent observations on the yield of taxes, to which I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make reply.
The thoughts pervading the speeches of hon. Members have naturally been in connection with what is called inflation,


and it is only natural that the occasion of a new Vote so large as this, coupled with the recent announcement of the partial exhaustion of our foreign assets, should lead our minds on to this subject. We are often asked, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has often asked, for a definition of inflation. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead said something about not rushing in where angels fear to tread. I can well imagine, if that question were asked the Chancellor, that he might hesitate to answer it; and I can readily believe that even the most cherubic of angels might fear to tread on such ground. Nevertheless, I would like to venture a definition which might help to form the basis of subsequent argument. The term "inflation" is hard to define because it is itself more a characterisation of a condition than the condition itself. It would perhaps be proper and better to define the condition which it characterises rather than the characterisation. The condition characterised by inflation, I suggest, is that state of affairs which arises when, as a result of the creation and use of credit—the word "use" is important—effective demand presses so hard upon available supply as to cause a rapid rise in prices, which is the same thing as a decline in the purchasing power of money. In such a definition the important words are the adjectives "effective" and "available."
The mere creation of credit, which is what we are proposing to do to-day, does not itself bring about inflation. It is the effective use of that credit to buy goods and services which will produce a rise in prices if and to the extent that there are other buyers in the market for the goods and services that have come to the market—that is to say, are available. I hope that that definition satisfies my hon. Friend as a basis.

Mr. Stokes: Not completely.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: It would be almost impossible to do that. I refer to my own powers, not to the hon. Member's appetite. Inflation on that definition describes the state of affairs which arises when two people start bidding against each other for the same thing—when they reach for the same hat or try to sit down upon the same seat.
That brings us to what I would call the Keynes point as distinct from the Keynes

plan. The Keynes point is that we must take steps to insure that the increased spending power placed in the hands of individuals as the result of the Government's use of their credit to buy goods and services shall not be allowed during the war to compete too strongly in the markets for the same and other essential goods and services when, as a result of the war, the supply of those goods and services is necessarily short. On the other hand, the Keynes plan, with which I happen to disagree—although perhaps more in respect of nomenclature than of method—is concerned with what measures we shall take to prevent that competition arising. A discussion of the Keynes plan might more properly be held on the Budget, but if one might indicate the field in which it is possible to take action to prevent that competition arising, I would suggest that the first thing that it is necessary to do is to determine where the increased income in the country is to be found. That could be discussed at length and I do not propose to carry it further at this moment.
But it is not solely the expenditure of income which may come into competition with the Government in the purchase of the things that the Government want. Here it is necessary for us to indulge in the luxury of bold thinking. It may be that by the disposal of capital assets an individual might find himself in a position to compete with the Government in the market for what the Government want. What are the implications of that suggestion? It means that if somebody like myself is so lucky as to find somebody foolish enough to buy his house in London, he must be prevented from going on the razzle-dazzle with the proceeds. The simple fact is that those who have capital assets have to be prepared to accept from the Government a restriction on their free power to dispose of the proceeds. Speaking as a free man and not under compulsion, I declare that with a whole heart I am willing to accept that restriction on my free power of disposal. To some extent we are already, especially in the field of non-essentials, in the condition of inflation—which is nature's cure for inaction. But we need have little fear of serious and general inflation if and to the extent that we understand and face our problem.
The problem is not primarily a financial one, though our success in dealing with it will find its measure and expression in money. That view, I think I am right in saying, found expression in the first report of the Committee on National Expenditure—the suggestion that the problem of preventing financial breakdown is not necessarily a financial one. It is not solely a question of restricting demand, it is also a question of stimulating supply, and stimulating in particular supply of the particular goods and services which constitute the kind of income which we need for the prosecution of the war. I suggest that our problem is that of the affirmative application of men and materials to the objects we have in view—feeding, clothing and housing ourselves while at the same time we defeat the enemy.
The Budget problems of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are largely framed for him in such Ministries as the Ministry of Labour and National Service and the Ministry of Supply, in their efforts to meet the living requirements of the people and the warlike requirements of the Services. If the Army bids for two lorry drivers when only one is available, we shall get inflation of lorry drivers' wages. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour must get hold of a butler and teach him how to drive a lorry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, by means of taxation, seek to compel the butler's employer to release him for that service. In most cases he has already done so, but to no purpose at all unless the Minister of Labour has already done his part in training the butler for the job. And it is not so much the butler "buttling while Rome burns" that will lead to inflation and incidentally cause us to lose the war, as our failure to teach him how to cease his "buttling" and to start up the engine of a lorry. So, too, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply will supply two lorries in the place of one provided the Minister of Labour will train a footman to be a fitter; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, again with the aid of that dry wag the Income Tax collector, will cause the footman to be torn from the dolce far niente of the servants' hall. But it is, I submit, essen-

tially a problem more of men and materials and training than of finance. A breakdown in finance would reflect a breakdown in mechanics and good will. I say "good will" because the key to getting good work out of people is not compulsion but getting their good will to do the work. To secure this it is first of all necessary that they should have confidence in whoever it may be that sets them their task. I say, therefore, to the extent that we can trust each other, can have confidence in each other, the work will be done. There will be no breakdown of mechanics or of good will, and so there will be no serious inflation.
May I say at this stage a word in respect of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) with regard to the application of an Excess Profits Tax to individuals? He asked whether there were any objections to that course. I submit that there are the strongest possible objections, both in equity and upon practical grounds. On practical grounds it would be extremely difficult to collect in the lower ranges of incomes, and in the higher ranges of incomes the rate of taxation is already so great that it would yield next to nothing. On grounds of equity, it is applicable only to the higher ranges of income. In the lower ranges of income, where income is largely the result of work done, we want to do nothing to prevent people getting extra pay for extra production. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will listen with as much attention as he can give to the strong representations which some of us will make to him not to be misled into that very specious form of taxation.
May I say a word on the partial exhaustion of our foreign assets? As my right hon. Friend has suggested, we have, to date, by using those assets, increased the supply of goods in this market by applying just that amount of purchasing power in other markets, principally in the United States of America. To that extent that amount of purchasing power did not fall on the home market and contribute to forcing up prices. But this process obviously cannot go on for ever. There is an end to reserves and the end may come in sight. Hence the vital importance to us, which has been stressed by hon. and right hon. Members, of the President's "Lease and Loan Bill." We


were right to take the risk of using up part of our reserves. It was a risk well run, like the risk at Sidi Barrani. But as we approach the end of our reserves, and until and unless increased supplies reach us from the United States, and even thereafter as our war effort grows, we must expect to tighten our belts—and that means all of us, myself, yourself, everyone.
In a series of speeches in this House on financial matters since the war began I have always stressed the necessity of one thing, that the Government to lead us to victory will be the Government that dares to demand mass sacrifice. It seems appropriate to define that phrase in its application to our present circumstances. It is intended to mean just this—that all our people must expect during the war to work harder and to live less well, and we must dare to tell them so. Some will earn more than before—and good luck to them; they have earned it if they produce more; but they must not spend more, at any rate during the war. They must give up part of it in taxes, and the rest of the increase must be lent to the Government. After the war it will be a different matter, though the threat of inflation will continue, albeit under different circumstances; but that is hardly a matter for present discussion.
After a quarter of a century in financial business I started some years ago to write a book about finance which was to be entitled "Character, Credit and Confidence." Partly owing to the inertia of middle age, and partly owing to other preoccupations, that book has not seen the light of day, and never may; which would save rue a lot of trouble. But its title may serve us to-day. For it is our character, such as and whatever it is, which determines our command of confidence, determines our ability to give and receive confidence, and so determines our command of credit.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) indulged in an amusing series of instructions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour as to the way in which they should deal with valets, butlers, lorry drivers and other species of labour. I was glad to perceive the acceptance of the fact that the gigantic problem with which we are confronted is

not primarily a financial one, but is essentially one which cannot be brought to a successful conclusion unless the available labour is properly used. It is not appropriate at this moment to discuss how labour should be used, but I hope the Chancellor will use his influence with the other Departments, particularly the Ministry of Labour and the War Office, to curb this appalling fetish of trying to persuade everybody that they are not doing their jobs unless they stop what they are doing and get on with something else. It is a very great danger. It affects the work of all the people of the country. The people of this country can pay their best contribution by sticking to the jobs they can do and getting on with them, producing to the maximum in the work which they are accustomed to pursue.
The hon. Member had a sly dig at me—or perhaps not a sly one—on the question of inflation. I make bold to tell him what my definition is. Like him, I came here unprepared. I hoped that there would be a pre-Budget Debate in which we should have an opportunity of enlarging on all sorts of suggestions which we might put to the Chancellor, but I am speaking now from memory, so to speak, and without having consulted any of the unorthodox text-books. I tell him that his definition of inflation did not completely satisfy me, probably because I did not understand what he said. My complaint against these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who live in their habitat known as the City is that they use such complicated terms. My simple definition of inflation, in words that I can understand, is that it denotes a state of things in which there is more money available for immediate individual expenditure than there is available a sufficiency of consumable goods to meet the desires of the people.

Mr. Shinwell: It is the same thing.

Mr. Stokes: It may be the same thing, but I have put it in words which I understand. If hon. Members agree with me, we shall be able to live a peaceful life in this House, as long as our constituents allow us to do so, on this point, if not upon a great many others. I did not understand the hon. Member's idea, moreover, that inflation is avoidable. I agree that the evil effects of inflation may


be avoidable, but I think that inflation is inevitable in war-time, if you have a state of things in which people are producing vast quantities of goods which they do not want to consume and are paid large wages while there is nothing to buy. Inflation is upon us, and unless we take care we shall find ourselves in Queer Street; I should like to address a few remarks on this subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer later.
Considerable reference to the Excess Profits Tax was made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). In the early days of last year I came out as the champion of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, and I do not deviate from that position. I agree that it has had some bad effects, but I submit that in at least some trades with which I am acquainted it has had the very good effect of keeping prices down. I hope that the Chancellor will not be tempted or, shall I say, will not give way to pressure from outside, to deviate from the path of rectitude which he adopted when he put that tax up to 100 per cent. There is a case for continuity in that tax, but I would like to see him change two things. He should agree to a much greater allowance for depreciation and obsolescence. I do not think anybody in this country realises the rate at which plant depreciates, not only from wear and tear but because new inventions come along at such a rate that unless you are prepared to write off the whole of your plant within 10 years you are completely out-of-date. This fact accounts for the backwardness exhibited in some of our industries right up to the outbreak of the war.
I would also ask the Chancellor to consider making arrangements whereby a proportion—it is not for me to say what proportion—of the Excess Profits Tax should be put aside by firms for capital expenditure and extension. To my mind it is essential, if he does that, that he should bring in a Limitation of Dividends Bill, absolutely preventing any distribution, including distribution by the banks, of dividends above 6 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman would adopt those suggestions I think we should find ourselves on the right road when the war ends instead of being in Queer Street, so far as the efficiency of our plant is concerned.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster spoke also of the inequity of applying the

100 per cent. to firms and not to individuals. I agree with him entirely. I almost begin to feel that the hon. Gentleman might cross the Floor and join us on this side of the Chamber. It seems quite wrong at this stage that many individual middlemen are apparently able to get away with enormous profits such as are absolutely forbidden to any company. I would direct the Chancellor's attention particularly to what is going on at the present moment—it does not conic directly under his control—in which large profits being made by funny happenings in the distribution of food. There is no discouragement, and large profits are being made, particularly in regard to pigs and onions. I speak unqualifiedly as a back-bench Member of Parliament. I consider, with the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that, in the present state of affairs, nobody should be allowed to benefit by the war. If anybody finds himself better off, he ought to pay the excess into the common pool, including Cabinet Ministers.
The hon. Member also called attention to the fact that what is generally termed the working man finds himself considerably better off now, although he is below the Income Tax level, and that he ought to be dealt with. That is all very well, but if the Chancellor contemplates accepting that suggestion I hope he will have regard to the necessary standard of living of the working man. Merely because a man's wages have gone up it does not follow that his inner state has improved. He has to carry out very arduous duties which are required of him, in circumstances of rising prices. I do not think anybody will contend that if a man finds himself earning £1,000 a year whereas he previously earned something like £150 a year, he should not be dealt with by taxation. I believe that is done, but I have a shrewd suspicion that the hon. Member was looking to a lower wage-scale, which I consider is well left alone and ought not to be dealt with at the present time.
Another reason for watching these vast sums of national expenditure in connection with the war is the appalling waste and extravagance that go on. Reference has been made to them by myself and other Members of this House, and particularly by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), who has called attention to particular matters concerning the construction of militia camps and


other engineering contracts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the keeper of the nation's purse, and we are here to ask him why it is that we cannot get any proper inquiry into that form of extravagance. It is no use his telling me in reply that the matter has been referred to the Select Committee on Expenditure; that is no use at all, for the reason that the Committee's terms of reference do not allow it to examine witnesses on oath. Hon. Members are aware that people have come forward to complain not only of extravagance and waste but actually of wrongful and dishonest doings among people engaged in the construction of these camps. Yet we cannot get the Chancellor, the War Office or anybody to take the slightest bit of constructive interest in the matter.
I do not wish to insult the Civil Service, because I think they are an admirable body of people, but they are the closest trade union in the world. They always find a very good reason for doing nothing. They never want to show each other up; they never give anyone away. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, when you are up against the Civil Service you are up against a very close trade union; they do not admit themselves wrong and are inclined to maintain that position even to the disadvantage of the public interest. The matter to which I refer has not been examined, although I brought it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) has also done so. You cannot get people to come forward and lay themselves open to dismissal if you will not have their cases examined. Those cases ought to be examined; if they are wrong, the people should be dealt with in a disciplinary manner, and if they are right, the people who have committed those wrongdoings should be dealt with by the Government and turned out of their jobs.
I wish to indulge in one or two perplexities. We have been asked in this Debate, Who pays for the war? My first reaction when I heard the hon. Member for Kidderminster ask that question was to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a look across the Channel and see what Hitler has done. He has quite obviously burst the money racket. It is evident that money does not pay for the

war. My second contemplation is this: Surely the right answer to the question "Who pays for the war?" is that wars are paid for by the sweat and blood of the people who fight them and who work in the factories turning out things that they do not want but which are essential if you are to blow other people's heads off. My final perplexity is this: I find it extremely difficult to see why you should first pay a man for doing a thing and then take the money away from him in order to pay him for having done it. That is what is done with your one-sided national balance-sheet. It is the only balance-sheet I have ever seen with no assets side. It has no assets side only because it suits the money creators to say that it has no assets. The whole thing wants recasting, and I invite the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to various letters and memoranda which I have inflicted upon Treasury Chambers from time to time.
Finally, the hon. Member for Kidderminster made this profound remark, that we cannot finance war by money provided by the banks. I would say. "For heaven's sake, Mr. Chancellor, do not let us finance this war by money created by the banks." As I see it, we are fighting this war under the White Ensign, but unless we are very careful we shall find ourselves under the three brass balls.

Major Mills: I heard with pleasure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say that he would do everything he could in consultation with the Departments concerned to check extravagance and eliminate waste. I want to assure him that this Committee will agree to this Vote of Credit with the approval of the country, but that the approval of the country will be much more readily given if the country is convinced that waste and extravagance are being eliminated. My postbag makes that fact quite clear. I will give two examples, and the first fits in very well indeed with what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has just said with regard to extravagance and waste in connection with the way in which camps were erected. The thinking public hate the cost-plus-profit system of putting out contracts. I completely agree with the hon. Member that there is no incentive to economy on the part of the contractor, and the checking of


costs comes far too late and in itself is too costly. The system may nave been necessary in the early days, but I trunk that sucent experience must have been accumulated by now, and that system should be abandoned and contracts should be made on ordinary lines with a clause to cover damage or extra expense caused by enemy action.
The second thing which hurts the public is waste by the troops, either of food or petrol. The public are short of both, and they think that they see a lot of both wasted. I know that the Army ration has been cut down once or twice, so that much less waste should now be possible. But waste there is, and waste there always will be unless the company officer takes a real interest in the company cookhouse and in how the rations are used and cooked. The cooking is a very important factor. I know what I am talking about, because I spent a good many months last winter as a subaltern in a company of a Home Defence battalion which was split up into many small detachments. I know what I saw in regard to waste there. If the cookhouse is properly inspected every day, a great deal of waste can be eliminated, and, what is more, the men will be much better fed if a good commanding officer will make it a matter of discipline on his periodical inspection. Of petrol, I cannot speak so definitely, but the public think that units such as the R.A.S.C. and the Royal Engineers who have plenty of lorries at their disposal use it extravagantly. If it is so—and I suspect that it is—it is a matter for organisation and inspection by the officers directly in charge of the lorries. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that point into consideration.
There is one other point with regard to rations. The Army has had its rations reduced. I believe that the Royal Air Force have had no cut at all. No one grudges the heroes who fly by day and by night, and to whom we owe so much, as much beef, mutton, cheese and tea as they can consume. But there is a very large staff on the ground for every man who is flying or learning to fly. Do the ground staffs need more food than The Army? I can hardly think so. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would consult the Secretary of State for Air and see whether economy is not possible here I should have thought that separate scales

of rations and separate messes could be arranged without much difficulty. Finally, I can assure my right hon. Friend that any steps he can take to ensure the prevention of waste or extravagance will be popular with the public.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has emphasised some points of economy to which the Chancellor himself referred in his opening remarks. The instances of waste in the Army have perhaps been exaggerated, but at the same time they should come under a most careful survey of the Chancellor and of this Committee. The Secretary of State for War on the last Sitting Day referred to the fact that about 300 Army vehicles were damaged every day. If they are repairable at a cost of not more than £10 each, the cost of this one item alone amounts to about £1,000,000 a year. Spending at the rate we are, and as we are trying to prevent waste and leakage, it is worth while saving any odd million that we can.
I do not think the Chancellor will complain at the way in which the Committee has received his proposals to-day. The tone was rightly set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who said that the country was determined to go all out for victory and to win. If I had any criticism to make of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, it would be this, that he did not take this opportunity of giving the country a tonic shock as to the sacrifices that it must be prepared to accept in the future. I hope that the forthcoming Budget to which he alluded will show that he has the courage to impose heavy additional taxation on all classes; the country, I know, will show itself ready to bear his chastening with fortitude. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), there is very much to be said for trying to get back, if at all possible, to the figure of 50 per cent. to be raised by taxation during the war. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) said that the Chancellor was faced with two maxima: the maximum amount that should be secured, and the maximum that the people of this country could hear. I hope the Chancellor will not err on the side of leniency in this question. Financial changes, as indeed


changes of all kinds, are most easily made in conditions of war. People are rapidly moving from one scale of expenditure into another as a result of the war, of losses that have been sustained and so on, and all these things are understood, giving the Chancellor a chance to make a really definite attack on this problem of paying for the war as we go. After all, we do hope that when this war is over we and our children are going to set about the building of a new and better world, and before we do that we want to get as much as possible of the cost of this war out of the way.
Tribute has been paid to the work of the War Savings Committee, and of those who organise War Weapons Weeks up and down the country. I would be the last not to pay tribute also, but I am bound to say that I doubt whether this is a satisfactory way of raising money for a European or world-wide war on the present scale. After all, the problems of the war are the mobilisation of men and the mobilisation of money. In the 1914 struggle the ways of doing both those things were the same—the mass meeting, the patriotic appeal, the brass band for both men and money. We found out at the time that that did not work for men, and we have since revised the system of calling men for service in the national interest. Instead of being seen off by enthusiastic crowds, as in the past, the young man slips away quietly in civilian clothes, without the cheers of his fellow townspeople and the handshake of the mayor. That handshake is now reserved for the local representative of the insurance company, who wanders along and pays £5,000 to head the War Weapons Week. I say frankly that I hope that my right hon. Friend will, as the financial stress develops, take more and greater control of the financial resources of the country.
I believe that the rationing of expenditure is one of the lines on which he could most fruitfully proceed. We are all in this war together, exposed to common perils, and subject to engagements entered into before the war and which must be honourably fulfilled, there is no particular reason why for the period of the war one class or one member of the community should have much more to spend than any other. This could quite properly be coupled with a system of family allowances. After all, the system of family allow-

ances. After all, the system of family allowances does place the spending power where it is necessary for the maintenance of the health and strength of the coming generation. A wage rightly earned by heavy and hard exertions by a single man may be more than he should properly be permitted to spend at the present time, and he could therefore be compelled to reserve some of that spending power until after the war. But that same wage might not be sufficient for the married man with a large family to maintain in health and strength. So I say to my right hon. Friend that he has chastened us with whips in the past, but if he now produces the scorpions, we will submit to them, and we will back him and the Government in every way to get this war won and paid for as soon as we can.

Sir Stanley Reed: I would like to suggest two points to the Committee. First, I would like to ask the Chancellor, in all seriousness, that when he comes to cast his next Budget he will give greater weight to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) than to those which have just fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Butcher). When the hon. Member for Kidderminster talked about the limit of bearable taxation, I am quite certain that he meant, and that the Committee understood, the limits of realisable taxation. All the hot air which was talked in this House on the last Budget about its being not sufficiently stringent, and all the hot air which is talked now by those who may not have to pay, about making the next Budget still more stringent, entirely ignores the basic problem, which is the limit of realisable taxation from the direct taxpayer at a time when vast masses of what we call taxable assets have completely disappeared or are in the process of completely disappearing. To follow advice which has been thrust at the Committee would be merely to accumulate an enormous block of bad debt—of direct taxation which could never be realised—so I hope the Committee will give its unhesitating support to the policy pursued by the Chancellor of keeping the weight of direct taxation within the bearable capacity of the direct taxpayer, or, in other words, his capacity to find the means of payment during the difficult period when he is reducing his commit-


ments and adjusting his expenditure in order to liberate money for the higher taxation payments, because I am perfectly certain this policy has produced, and will produce, the very largest amount which could be obtained in any circumstances whatsoever.
The points I wish to commend to the Committee and to the Chancellor are those advanced by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) for, apart from the astronomical figures which have been given in this discussion and in the Chancellor's opening statement, the whole issue narrows itself down to this: How can the gap between the maximum yield of taxation and the maximum amount of voluntary saving be bridged and satisfied? That is the point to which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead addressed his attention, and I am sorry he was too modest not to develop it. I hope he will develop it on a later occasion, because he made three fundamental points. The first was whether the National Savings Campaign does not need now to be reinforced by some other measure. That, I would suggest, is a matter of the very first importance.
We all talked a great deal about Mr. Keynes' Plan when it was produced, and we have forgotten it now. Looking back it seems to me that Mr. Keynes had the real salt of the matter in him although the methods by which he meant to apply his plan were not adapted to the circumstances. He proposed deferred payments from all wages. Everybody knows that at that time the scale of wages in millions of instances did not allow of any postponement of the wage, because the wage only just met essential family expenditure. Had Mr. Keynes put this proposal for deferred payments upon overtime and bonuses he might have gone to the root of the matter. Overtime payment is the most wasteful payment in the world; bonus payments are often very large amounting to three or four times the standard wage. These are what we might have to turn into national savings. The second point is the rationing of commodities. There he was on rather more dangerous ground for every expansion of rationing means a great increase in our colossal bureaucracy. I think that that problem will be settled by the Purchase Tax and the limitation of supplies. The third point was the rationing of the armed

services—that is saying to the services: "The maximum sum you can handle consistent with the national resources is so much and you must do the best you can with it." I know that that will be regarded as heterodox. I am not at all certain that you could not get the same measure of efficiency and the same measure of armed strength and offensive power from a system so devised and so applied as from an uncontrolled expenditure which goes right beyond the grip of the Treasury and beyond any grip which this House may fasten upon the outlay. I hope that in later stages of this financial discussion these points may be dealt with. I think they are pertinent, and I trust that they will meet with the sympathetic consideration of the Chancellor himself.

Mr. Loftus: I did not intend to speak to-day. I decided to do so only a very short time ago. Like many other hon. Members, I had understood that to-day was to be devoted to a discussion on the Ministry of Information. Because of that belief, several of those who were gravely concerned about the financial position decided not to speak to-day, as we felt that, with this immense problem facing us, we should have to prepare our remarks most carefully. We understood that before the next Budget in April a day would be given for a discussion of the financial problem. I very much regret that that prospect is receding into the distance. I cannot conceive a more useful function for the House of Commons to perform than to face this problem, which is almost, if not quite, the greatest problem of the war, and to devote a day to discussing, in a quite non-party manner, any ideas which any hon. Member can put forward to help my right hon. Friend, preparatory to his introducing the Budget. I very greatly regret that; and, therefore, I have decided to venture a few remarks to-day.
The discussion has turned largely upon the danger of inflation. Of course, it has turned on the question of this enormous gap. How can we avoid inflation, with its evil results? There are only three methods of financing the war. In abstract theory, the most just and certain method of avoiding inflation is to raise the whole cost by taxation. But, in practice, that is utterly impossible. We have not yet reached the limit of taxa-


tion, but we are moving steadily on in that direction. The second method is to raise the finances of the war as much as possible by taxation, supplemented by loans, hoping that that will prevent inflation, and meet the total expenditure of the war. But does any hon. or right hon. Member believe that that is possible? Does any individual in this country, facing the gigantic figure of expenditure that is before us, believe that sufficient money can come from those two sources of revenue, taxation and genuine savings? I challenge anyone to answer in the affirmative. It cannot be done. Let us face realities, and admit that that gap cannot be bridged either by taxation or by genuine savings. These may narrow the gap, but they cannot bridge it. We have to face the fact that there must be some degree of inflation. We ought to consider which is the least harmful way of bridging the gap by some method of inflation. I suggest that we should all agree that the most harmful way would be to copy the methods of the last war, with its enormous creation of bank credits, used to subscribe the new loans at 5 per cent., which has left that appalling burden of debt upon the nation as an annual charge.
I think that we are to-day using a much better method. My right hon. Friend is using the new method of borrowing from the joint stock banks Treasury deposit receipts at 1⅜ per cent. The money he gets goes into circulation, and gradually creates new bank deposits, on which he again borrows at 1⅜ per cent. Again the money goes into circulation, paying for all kinds of Government expenditure, and creates new deposits. On those, he can borrow again at 1⅜ per cent. That is an enormous improvement in technique on what happened in the last war; and the Treasury deserve to be congratulated. But is there not a danger that these loans at 1⅜ per cent. may later be converted into subscriptions to medium and long term Government loans, at, say, 2½ per cent.? I direct the attention of the Committee to the statement of Mr. McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank, the other day. He pointed out that the creation of credit by the joint stock banks was not costless. Over all, the interest that the banks will receive is about one per cent.

He suggested that that would just about cover the cost of the creation of the credit. If we assume that to be so, and these loans due to the Treasury are converted later on into long-term loans at 2½ per cent., obviously that would be the beginning of the disastrous procedure of the finance of the last war.
I feel that, if there has been a bridging of the gap by the creation of credit, we ought to face the fact and create that credit in such a manner as to do the least harm. It is bound to do harm, but it should be done in such a manner as to do the least harm and place the least burden on the future of this country in the way of debt. I strongly suggest that, where taxation, plus genuine savings, does not meet the expenditure of the war, the State itself should, at the Bank of England, create credit to bridge the gap without debt. It is inflation, I agree, and it would mean that at the end of the war there would be a debit to the State at the Bank of England of whatever figure it was, of £2,000,000,000 or £3,000,000,000, which would represent the real cost to the nation, or a great part of it, in the loss of wealth due to the war effort.
If the answer to that proposal is that that is inflation, I agree, but our present methods are inflation, and methods founded on the last war are inflation. The advantage of this method is that it does not pile up any permanent interest-bearing debt in the future. I wish we could to-day have a discussion of these very difficult problems. We all realise that finance is one of the main levers of war, and it is the desire of every hon. Member of the Committee to face this gigantic problem and to think over every possible method of helping, realising that on a successful solution may well depend the issue of the war, and also that there is no perfect solution, but that we have to face facts and so organise our funds that, if there is to he any kind of inflationary tendency, it shall rigidly be controlled, and by the least possible harmful method.

Mr. Wedgwood: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) through his speech. It seems to me that this creation of credit is only a branch of the great Major Douglas proposals we have had for the last 25 years.

Mr. Loftus: Credit is being created every day now in the war, and after the last war most of the National Debt was created credit.

Mr. Wedgwood: The hon. Member must wait and follow my speech at each stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with inflation, and the inflation problem is the real one that we have to consider. It is the basis of this credit-creation question altogether. I should say that every year the measure of inflation which we are inflicting upon the future is measured by the difference between the expenditure of the country and the amount collected in taxation; that the lack of balance between expenditure and taxation measures the inflation of the future. We are all anxious to see that inflation is reduced, but we ought, first of all, to grasp the idea that every deficit of this nature to a certain extent creates the inflation that we have to face. That inflation is not reduced by the amount of money that is borrowed; whether the debt is funded or unfunded, it will still lead to inflation. It merely postpones the date on which inflation occurs. I do not expect that during the duration of the war there will be much inflation at all; in the last war it came afterwards, as a surprise to everybody. But the measure of the inflation to be faced and the measure of our capital assets is the difference between the expenditure of the State and the tax revenue.
The next point that I want to make is this: It really does not matter to this country whether the money is put into businesses or into Treasury bonds. It does not make any difference to the inflationary results or to the financing of the war. The Chancellor ought to be equally pleased when £10,000,000 is put into savings of any sort in this country, or goes to the banks and through the banks into businesses, because it is as much needed in business as it is in the State financing of the war. You cannot finance the development of factories which are in private hands unless they can borrow money. It is all part of the war effort. Even if those factories are being used for export trade or required for war credits, it is just as much a development of the war wealth of those factories. All savings are to the good, and all individual

extravagance is to the bad, and I do not think that we are meeting the extravagant expenditure of the people of this country by putting on a Purchase Tax or things of that sort.
Sooner or later you will have to prevent extravagance in other ways. I saw an advertisement in the "Evening Standard" last night, in which it stated that a restaurant was ready to supply meals at home to people who could afford to pay 5s. for one dish. I think it was called hare, but it might have been rabbit. Apparently it paid to put in the Press an advertisement for this kind of extravagant meal. It meant that you could not get a lunch under £1, and I do not think you can stop that kind of extravagance by putting on a small Purchase Tax. What you have to do is to get to the root of the evil and prevent people from having extravagant incomes. Income Tax is at present 8s. 6d. in the £, which I would call not a bad start. Obviously, this year Income Tax will increase, and I would ask the Chancellor to consider once more what might be called the "Keynes plan"—that is to say, not to take incomes entirely for expenditure but to give us bonds in exchange for part of our incomes, interest on which will begin to be paid at the end of the war. I believe that that would have a very good effect in two different ways. In the first place it would, stop the extravagant expenditure of the present day. People would not have the money to spend. Secondly, if applied all round to all classes of society, it would have a great stabilising effect upon the people of the country, in that it would give everybody an interest in the continued solvency of the State, a direct interest in there being no inflation, and a stake in the country which they do not possess at the present time and which would be extremely valuable in all classes of the community.
Therefore, the three points I want to make are these. First, any form of created credit, whether it be by short-term borrowing or long-term borrowing, any form of shortage between the annual expenditure of the country and its annual income, must inevitably lead to inflation. Secondly, that inflation is not reduced by lending money to the Government any more than it is by lending money to private concerns, as long as that money somehow gets into business and creates the power of using capital in the develop-


ment of industry in this country. Thirdly, it would be much more tolerable to people to have an excessively high rate of Income Tax if part of that Income Tax did not go straight to the State, but was merely converted into some form of bond the interest on which would not begin to be paid until the end of the war. This would give a real reduction in extravagant expenditure, and it would give to all classes of the community a stake in the country which would be a safeguard against inflation and be in favour of the continued solvency of the State.

Sir K. Wood: I am very much indebted to hon. Members for the contributions they have made to the Debate. Many hon. Members have seized the opportunity to give me their opinions and suggestions concerning our finances, and some of that advice has been conflicting. However, I appreciate all that has been said, and I will carefully study it and take it into account. The only direct question that was put to me was whether I could give any estimate of what the Revenue will be. I cannot do that at this time.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said just now that hon. Members who wanted to discuss finance thought we were going to talk about the Ministry of Information. I think that some hon. Members who wanted to talk about the Ministry of Information have probably thought that we were going to talk about finance. I make no apology for drawing the attention of the Committee again to the work of the Ministry of Information. I do not do so because I want to start another of the floods of imprecation which have fallen on its head. I do so because I want to urge the Minister to bolder and more imaginative undertakings in what I believe is a vital part of the strategy of war.
As the Prime Minister said not very long ago, this is a war of ideas. The ideas for which we are fighting are the ideas of democracy and the liberty, equality and fraternity upon which democracy is built. I believe that those ideas, in solemn truth, are the most potent weapons in the whole of the armoury with which we are conducting the war. They are the weapons in which we altogether outclass Hitler. Yet, paradoxically enough, it is in the war

of ideas that so far Hitler has won his most startling successes, and he has done it precisely in that domain in which he is himself most vulnerable to our attacks. He deals in lies, we deal in truth. Yet his lies have greatly helped him in his various aggressions from 1936 until today. He is most vulnerable in the war of ideas, and so is Mussolini, because in both Germany and Italy, as we have very good reason to know if we study the evidence which comes out of those countries, the people are defeatist, unhappy and profoundly divided among themselves. The other day, American journalists who had just come from Berlin said that victorious Germany was a land of gloom. We know, too, that in the countries which the Germans have occupied and conquered there is to-day a rising tide of hatred and of hope. I cannot bring myself to feel that so far we have really begun to use the opportunities which these facts give us. We have not understood the importance of the weapon of morale, and we have hardly even started to plan the great offensive which is required.
That sounds like a very sweeping condemnation of the Minister and his work. The right hon. Gentleman knows I do not so intend it. Much of his work is, in my opinion, admirably done. On the home front he has made real progress. There has been some controversy about some of the Ministry of Information's meetings. I know that some hon. Members opposite dislike having speakers come to their constituencies unless they have first given their consent, and some hon. Members on this side think that we should be much better employed speaking on other platforms than on those of the Ministry. But I do not want to deal with this at length. I am sure that the Committee will understand that if the Members of one party are to have a right of veto in more than 400 constituencies, a sense of grievance is very likely to arise. For my part, I should be very sorry in my own constituency to take the responsibility for vetoing any meeting or any speaker which the Ministry had arranged. I am sure that hon. Members who do so may some day have a day of reckoning with their constituents. There have been many thousands of these meetings. They have given rise to virtually no complaints. They have been conducted in a truly national spirit, and I am certain they have


been worth while. I do not believe that the film work which the Ministry has put through could have been much better. The travelling film vans have had immense audiences, and many of the films are really very good. So are some of the Ministry's publications. I have the impression that the regional organisation at long last is really gaining strength and beginning to do its job. I do not share the view that this is all unnecessary or wasted work. Of course, the morale of our people is now magnificent, but we have our gravest trials ahead, and the more that our people really understand the issues of the war, really know what Nazism and Fascism mean, really know why we can hope for victory and what we mean to do with victory when we have won it, the better for their resolution and for the success of our cause.
Having said this, I turn to the foreign work of the Ministry. Again, think some of the foreign work has been enormously improved. I will not speak of that because I want to save the time of the Committee. I pass directly to one part of that work in which, as I have said, I believe that our greatest opportunities are still unseized—that is, the broadcast work in Germany and Italy and in the countries which the Germans have conquered and controlled. It is of this that I want principally to speak. I am sure the Minister and the Committee will agree that the work which we can do in these countries is potentially more important than all the rest of the propaganda that we can do put together. I believe the Minister will agree that we have a chance there to win greater victories than those of Goebbels now that the tide of war has at last begun to turn. I think that the Minister will agree that of all that we can do in these countries, broadcasting is incomparably the most important part.
Unfortunately, responsibility for this broadcasting has been divided between the Minister and the B.B.C., and from that division, perhaps for other reasons, great misfortunes have resulted. We have come to think of foreign broadcasts as a kind of side-show in Broadcasting House, and the Minister and his predecessor have not wanted to interfere with the autonomy of the B.B.C. in their own domain. The result of divided counsel and responsibility, and misconceived loyalties, has been that we have largely failed in this

most vital part of our work. I do not want to be misunderstood. Some parts of our broadcasts are extremely good, some have been brilliant. I have said before, and I say again, that within their means, and within the limits of their general conception of the job, the B.B.C. have done admirable work and have considerable achievements to their credit. But the means which they have used have not been enough, and their conception of the job has been far too limited and narrow. We have urgent need of something much bolder and more imaginative than anything they have tried. I do not mean that we have failed in the amount of transmitter time. We all know the difficulties of the shortage of transmitters—responsibility for that goes far back into history. Within the limits imposed by the transmitters that we possess, there have been grave shortcomings, both in the technical arrangements for our foreign broadcasts and in their substance. In both there has been a lack of vision which I think every Member of the Committee will deplore.
Let me deal with the technical arrangements first. Long ago, in last May, I called the Minister's attention to the matter. On 28th May I urged upon the Minister that the foreign service was really not a proper part of the functions of the B.B.C., that the organisation which was carrying it on was working in what I called "vile conditions," that it had no proper office space, or studio space, no proper organisation and staff, not enough experts, and that very few of the people whom they used had real radio personalities. I suggested to the Minister that he should take it over, re-house it and strengthen it, and, above all, give it more transmitter time. I raised the matter again in December last, and the Parliamentary Secretary was able to tell the House that the service had been very considerably extended—within a year the number of languages had increased from 16 to 30, and transmissions from 66 per week to 144, and so on. But unhappily the whole show was still inside the B.B.C., and unfortunately the material conditions were just as bad; indeed, they were a good deal worse, because with every addition to the programme there had been an increased pressure on personnel and upon space. I used


the word "vile" last May, I repeated it in December, I gave details to support it, and I begged the Minister to go and see things for himself. The Parliamentary Secretary had already done so, and went far beyond what I said. He said that the conditions were almost intolerable, that it was quite impossible for people to do their work, and he held out hopes that better arrangements would be promptly made. Seven weeks have gone by since that Debate, and, so far as I know, no practical improvement has yet been made. These unhappy men and women have gone on working in intolerable conditions; indeed, the conditions have grown so much worse that I now venture to say they constitute a public scandal.
I will give the Committee a few details of the two sections which I believe we all agree are the most important—sections where efficiency should be everything and where no cost should be spared to give the best results. I am referring to the Italian and German sections. It has already been shown in Africa, Abyssinia and Albania that Signor Mussolini's greatest weakness is the morale of his people and his troops. This weapon of ideas is of capital importance in fighting against him. The Italian war costs perhaps £2,000,000 a day. In our broadcast service for Italy we employ altogether fewer than 20 people. If my facts are wrong, I hope the Minister will correct me. I am doing my best to state the truth as I believe it to be. We have fewer than 20 people to deal with news, talks, commentaries and all the rest combined. That is for a service of 2¼ hours a day in five transmissions spread over the night and daytime—20 including announcers, translators, typists, experts, planners, organisers and all the rest. Although they all work very hard and are very devoted and their spirit is splendid, they have not all got the experience and are not all of the type required. I have heard a rumour that they were given an announcer who had every merit except that he did not know a word of Italian. I know this to be true, that among the people who are working on the news—13 all in for a service of 110 minutes a day, people who have to translate also some of the talks given by Englishmen and have other duties to perform—10 translators and 3

typists—a number have only had commercial experience in offices in Rome. If there is one job more expert than another, it is the translation of news. It can only properly be done by journalists with polical experience, and I should say by nationals of the country to which the news goes.
These 13 men and women work in shifts. They have at their disposal one tiny room—it is not really a room at all; it is the size of a box—one room about as big as this Table, and perhaps the Speaker's Chair—and they have three dilapidated typewriters. The room is fearfully stuffy. In that place, with their three typewriters clattering away together, these men must translate, arrange, cut the news—

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. I was wondering whether the statements the hon. Member is now making are not in themselves dangerous. Is it advisable to make statements of that kind in public Debate? Perhaps he will limit himself as much as possible to statements which will not help the enemy.

The Chairman: This is not exactly a point of Order, but the hon. Member has made his point, and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has no doubt noted it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was only after mature reflection, and after consulting a number of my friends whose judgment I esteem more than my own, that I thought it right in the public interest to bring out these facts. My only purpose is to serve the national interest in a matter which I regard as of the highest importance. These people, who have to do difficult and important intellectual work, are trying to do it in conditions which impose upon them a maximum of difficulty and strain which must have a deleterious effect upon the results that they attain. I am sure they are all in a state of chronic overwork. When any of them get ill, as they do, the others have to work two shifts a night and sleep in the morning as best they can. The Italian talks are immensely important. The plans are arranged by one person. I know his qualifications and think that they are admirable in every way, but it is impossible for one man to do this work.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Do all the Italian talks emanate from this country, or do some come from Cairo?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is an important point, but I am not able to answer it I believe that the most important talks emanate from here. If we have a service from here at all, we ought to give the men who are doing it a better chance than they are having. I turn to the German section. Here there is more work to be done and a few more people to do it. They have begun to organise a feature programme and soon it is to occupy 45 minutes a day. It is a splendid innovation, and I am glad it is being done. It will be extremely valuable, provided it does not fall below the standard of technical excellence which Dr. Goebbels has set for German listeners. That is an important point.
Feature programmes need an immense amount of work if they are to be kept up to a high standard of technical excellence. I am told that for a single feature in our home programme, "In Town Tonight" on Saturday evenings, which lasted half an hour, the B.B.C. used to have a whole-time staff of seven or eight people. For 45 minutes a day, according to the latest information I have received—which I hope is out of date—the German section has only four people doing the work. These people must be overworked, and I think that it is true to say that all the more important foreign sections in Broadcasting House have been desperately overworked. Some of them have not had a day off for a long time and have been working 12 or 14 hours a day. Whether overworked or not, those in the foreign sections, the Empire talks, and so on, who do such splendid service, have been living in intolerable conditions. Now there are to be big expansions of the programmes and new transmitters coming into use. The time is to be nearly doubled in some of these services. What is to happen?
The Minister will tell us that part of the new building will soon be taken over. I pressed that on the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary last December. It would, I think, have solved the problem if enough of it had been taken at once. Why was it not taken? I have heard two reasons given. I hope that both are false, but I have reason to think that they

are true. One is that a private company had a contract to use the part needed for a studio for commercial purposes. The other is that the B.B.C. authorities were afraid that some Government Department might want to take the building for itself. I suppose that they were afraid of the hieratical activities of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. That is what I mean when I say that more courage and vision are required in this work. Reasons such as these ought to be swept aside rather than that a vital national service should be impaired as our foreign broadcasting has been. I am informed that so little of this new building has been taken that the material conditions will be very little better than they have been hitherto. I want to put it to the Minister that this is a job for him. Let him take it up. Let him get a proper building. Let him make certain that the new staff which is needed is quickly found and that they are the right people and do not have to wait two months to get a permit to work. Let him make sure that the whole thing is properly officered, organised, housed and equipped and, above all, that it is properly directed and controlled.
That brings me to the substance of our foreign broadcasts, the messages which we send out to other countries, above all to those people who are under the oppressor's heel. The Minister will understand that I am not going to deal with much of the work, which I think is very good, but I wish to draw his attention to matters which I think he should consider and urge upon him the general lesson which I think the Government should draw. Let me begin with our news services. Everywhere the Nazis rule the people are fed on lies. Incomparably the most important single weapon we have against them is to tell the truth. Hitherto, in all their news bulletins, the B.B.C. have kept a splendid standard of accuracy and of veracity in their news, and that has become incomparably our greatest single asset in France and the other conquered countries, and in Germany and Italy as well. It is vital that that standard should be kept up in everything we do, in our news, comments, talks, our news programmes to the German forces, and in all the services which we control. I know the temptation to use the news to try to start a whisper to demoralise the other side. I remember the instructions given to a British officer who was dealing


with articles for the foreign Press in the last war, that essential and not literal truth and accuracy are required. The instructions said: "Inherent probability being respected, the thing imagined may be as serviceable as the thing seen." That will not do in this war. If Goebbels caught us inventing "essential truths" it would undo the patient priceless work of many months. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the point because I have reasons for thinking that it is well worth his while to look into it.
A second point: So far as it is possible, I urge the Minister to arrange that the news shall be selected and edited, and not only translated, by our foreign colleagues who have special qualifications for the job. This is not a job that any man can do. It needs a working journalist with political knowledge behind him. Thirdly, I want to urge that we should give all the news that is important to the public to whom we are sending it. I will give two examples. A few months ago a large group of Frenchmen in France belonging to a party which was very strongly represented in the last Chamber and which strongly supported our cause, issued a manifesto condemning the French surrender to the Nazis and expressing their solidarity with Great Britain in the strongest terms. A copy of that manifesto reached this country and has been published. For millions of the French public it was an extremely important document. Some of us may not agree with all of its language, but that does not alter the point. Friends of mine who listen with great care to the French broadcasts assure me that that manifesto was never used.
Again, last October General de Gaulle issued an official declaration stating general policy with regard to the restoration of constitutional democracy in France when the war is over. It was published in his official gazette, and he repeated it in a magnificent speech in London not long ago. My hon. Friends tell me that, to the best of their belief, it has not been used. I hope they are wrong. If they are not, I can conceive of several reasons why those items of news were not used. I believe all the reasons are wrong. I think the real reason, probably, is that the Government are acting on the principle that anything said in any broadcast

from this country engages their official national responsibility. I hope that they will not go upon that principle. It would be fatal. It is really a Totalitarian conception and would have a particularly dangerous effect upon the news. The same principle would be equally dangerous in talks—and that leads me to pass from the news to talks and to say a word about the censorship which has been exercised and which has, I think, been very considerably relaxed.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Before the hon. Member passes, in his very interesting speech, to a new topic, I should be glad if he would give us his views on something which is neither news nor talks, but comment on news, which is now a very important part of these broadcasts. Does he suggest that such comments on the news should be the responsibility of the Foreign Office or of the B.B.C., or that they should remain the absurd mixture that they are at present?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should very much like to see them become the responsibility of the commentator. Let me give an example. We have a military officer, Colonel Stephens, who comments on the news several times a week to Italy. He was attacked not long ago by Signor Farinacci and was referred to by their minister as "Colonello Stephens di Londra," implying that everybody in Italy knew who Colonel Stephens was, and that, as we know from other sources, he is extremely popular. Colonel Stephens, when he comments upon the news, does so on his own responsibility. The Italians regard him as a man. Suppose we used my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. V. Bartlett) for the same purpose. He is one of the most famous broadcasters in the world. He is known in almost every country. It would be absurd to give him a national responsibility.

Mr. Strauss: I agree, but I was speaking about the anonymous commentator and the practice of giving a sort of view of the news. As I may be speaking on this subject afterwards I should like to know the opinion of the hon. Member.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Anonymous comments are open to precisely the objection to which the hon. Member has referred. I infinitely prefer the Colonel Stephens plan,


and I hope it will be very largely developed. Let me get back to my original line of argument. Someone I know, broadcasting to Greece two months after the war began, was not allowed to say to the Greek people that the Greek cruiser "Helle" had been sunk by an Italian submarine. The reason given was that we were not quite sure that it was an Italian submarine that sank the ship. The Greeks knew it already, and the "Times" newspaper said that that was the reason why they began then to prepare to go to war, and if it was not the Italians who sank it, then it must have been a British submarine, for there were no other submarines operating at that time in the Mediterranean. In December, another speaker, talking to Canada and North America, was not allowed to say that an embargo by other nations upon Japanese goods would have stopped the Japanese aggression against Manchuria in 1931.
These examples are a kind of hangover from appeasement days, and the point I want to make is the same as I made about the news—that it would really be fatal if people outside our country came to think that nothing was said by speakers, independent speakers whose names they know, that did not have the approval of the Foreign Office or of some other Government Department. We want people in different parts of the world to know that, although we may not agree on other matters, we are all united in support of this righteous war. We want the world to know that here in Britain the fullest liberty of speech is still allowed, and we still have democratic discussion. If you censor some of these speakers you destroy a very considerable part of their utility for our national cause.
Let me pass to another problem. I want to ask whether the special talks for workers in the conquered countries cannot be increased? We know that the workers, peasants and trade union movements are immensely important from our point of view. Fortunately, many of their leaders happen to be in our country, but they do not get very much chance to speak to their people. I know one great country which has half-an-hour's broadcasting time per day—or did have when last I heard it—and there are four minutes a week devoted to talks to workers. My last point on talks is this.

In our French transmissions we have built up a team of French speakers who do brilliant work. It is called "The French speak to the French." They are not men who held any great public positions in France. They are not trying to form an alternative Government, but they are resuscitating the soul of France. I have a letter written a month ago from unoccupied France to one of them. The writer says:
We only live morally because of you. You have rebuilt the morale of France.
We can measure their success by the success of General de Gaulle's one hour plebiscite on New Year's day. No Englishman, however eloquent and able, could have done this work. I want the Minister to consider whether he cannot apply the same plan to Germany and Italy as well. Why cannot we make teams of anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist German and Italian speakers like these Frenchmen? We have them—brilliant men, not tarnished as discredited politicians, of high moral standing in their countries and ardently, passionately, patriotically devoted to our cause. Hitherto, the Government have rejected proposals on these lines and the explanation that I was once given by a high official was that, of course, Germans and Italians would listen to Englishmen but they would regard their own people as traitors and would not listen to them at all. I think that that is an utter misunderstanding of the whole situation in Germany and Italy, and the people who take that view ought not to be dealing at all with enemy propaganda. We can only begin to touch the soul of Germany and Italy when they hear their own people—men whose integrity they know and trust—arguing our cause with them and telling them the truth about our conditions, about their governments and about the war.
Let me turn from that point. Again, to anticipate possible objections, let me say that this cannot be a secret matter. Thousands of people in this country and all over the world are listening to everything that goes out from this country, and besides, our people have a right to know what is being said in their land. Six months ago a man was asked to talk to Italy. He was given as his line, "Attack Mussolini but not the Fascist party." Unless I am misinformed, until recently when an important new decision was


given—for which I am very grateful—it was true that none of our speakers had ever explained why Fascism was the cause of Italy's disasters. They never told the Italians that we wanted to help them to regain their freedom and to rebuild democracy and peace in Italy and throughout the world. Indeed, much of our talks implied that Fascism might be an excellent thing and that the Fascist party were simply our erring but much-regarded friends. Intelligent Italians in this country will deduce from that fact only that we are planning to make peace with some Fascist leader other than Mussolini on the terms of selling Abysinnia and Albania. I do not believe for an instant it is true, but it was what many of them thought.
I put it to the Minister that that really is not sense. The Fascist party were and always have been our bitter enemy; they wanted an Empire, and wanted it at our expense. As propaganda, it was extremely ineffective. The Italian people know very well that Fascism is the cause of their disasters; there are reams of evidence as to that. There is the evidence of the prisoners that they have now begun to hate the Fascist party, and that the very names of Abyssinia and Albania have become hateful to them. A series of articles published in the "Daily Telegraph" not long ago dealt with the causes of the present Italian defeat, and when they were analysed four out of six of the main causes were simply hatred of Fascism expressed in different manners. Mussolini has just sent eight of his Fascist Ministers to the front. That seemed mysterious until we learned that the Italian troops at the front have a new slogan: "Let the Fascists do the fighting; it is their war, not ours." Of course, the leaders had to go to the front to show that they were ready to accept sacrifices, but it shows the unpopularity of the regime and the extreme danger in which Mussolini knows he now stands. We shall only touch the Italian people when we give them a true message, such as I believe the British people want to send them, that we want a new world in which they will live with us in freedom and prosperity.
My last point in regard to policy is about the programme for the German Forces which was started at the beginning of this year. I think it was a very good

idea; I think it will reach the Germans in the occupied countries and perhaps elsewhere. Some parts of the programmes have been very good, but some have been lamentable. We have tried to copy one method of propaganda from Dr. Goebbels which is open to very grievous objection, and I hope we shall never repeat it. We have used old stories, not all of them quite certainly true, and have sought to exploit an order by General Milch abolishing compulsory church parades as an attack on religion in the Army.
Most important, and this is the chief point I want to make, we have not had a clear message to give to the German soldiers to tell them why they should not fight against us. Let me give an example. One day we put on an officer in an Allied Army. He told the German soldiers that he had served in the German Army in the last war and that he had been proud of his men when they had been brave in that war, but that now the German Army was smirching its honour at the orders of the Nazis under the sign of the Swastika. Fearful crimes, which he described, had been committed in his country. Then, he ended, the Germans would not be allowed to say after the war that the Nazis were to blame; they were all guilty and their punishment would come. That is not telling the Germans why they should not fight against us. It is really inviting them to fight to the very last, on the beaches, on the Rhine, in the suburbs of Berlin.
I understand that officer's feelings. Very often I share them, but it is not sense to say that they can resist at the present stage the order of the Nazis. It is not sense to say that we will punish all the Germans, as we punish the Nazis, because we are not going to do so. But it illustrates the fundamental question which the Government have to answer, if they are to do any effective propaganda in the German Army. They have to tell the Germans what will happen if they do rebel against their Nazi masters, as we very often ask them to do. At present the Germans think, as one of them who is in this country has put it, that they have no alternative to enduring tyranny at home except to endure foreign domination, no alternative to existing as a hated robber State except to exist as a despised nation of pariahs. We have to give them a practical alternative. We should delude our-


selves if we thought that they could rebel at the present moment: the power of Himmler's machine is far too great. But when the tide of battle has turned, the moment may come when they can rebel. That may come soon. That is why I hope the Government will find it possible to do what I know many of them want to do, and make a statement of general principles about the peace settlement when it comes.
I hope, in any case, that they will deal with this business of what is to happen to the Germans who rebel against Hitler. I hope that they will not accept the old stuff about all Germans being the same. Some Englishmen said that German scholars dive deeper than others, and come up muddier. Do not let us imitate them. Let us remember that in November, 1922, in the last free election in Germany, after three years of having 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 unemployed, Hitler got only 33 1/3rd per cent. of the votes; let us remember that, since then, the Germans have suffered every kind of misery; let us remember that there have been 500,000 of them in concentration camps; let us remember the immense political exodus; and let us remember the evidence that a vast number of Germans now detest this war. Many millions of them are now our potential allies. I submit, with diffidence, that our message ought to be this: that we will never again allow Germans to threaten the peace of the world; that they have had their last Bismarck, their last Kaiser, their last Hitler; but that if they will help us, we will help them to build a free, peaceful, prosperous Germany, and share in the common progress and common happiness which we want to make. We must say to them what Mr. Neville Chamberlain said in his broadcast to the German people on 3rd September, 1939. He said:
In this war we are not fighting against you, the German people, you, for whom we have no bitter feelings, but against the tyrannous and forsworn régime, which has betrayed not only its own people, but the whole of Western civilisation and all that you and we hold dear.
That is not only a noble sentiment.; it is not only a pledge; it is a statement of political truth about the German people and ourselves. I hope that the Minister will send that message to the Germans and to the Italians. If he does, I believe that he will help to curtail this war by

many months, and build a stable peace in the years to come.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In the past many hard things have been said about the Ministry of Information—indeed, I plead guilty to having said such things myself—but certainly not about my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is only right and fair, therefore, to say that adverse criticism of the Ministry of Information has very largely died down because of the reorganisation and cleaning up which the present Minister has carried out. Undoubtedly, there is much in what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has said about improving foreign broadcasts and conditions, but my impression is that the Minister, during the time he has held his office, has immensely improved not only the dissemination of the home news and the information given to the Press, but also the foreign talks, which, the hon. Member, quite rightly, has said, are so important. I think it is infinitely more important that we should devote our attention to giving to those who are our friends true news, true facts, and as much of both as we possibly can without giving the enemy any information which should be withheld from him.
I do not think that we will influence the German and the Italian people very much by the kind of broadcast talks which go out to them. I do not think for example, that denunciation over the radio by speakers from this country of totalitarianism will have, at the present time at any rate, very much more effect in Germany and in Italy than the daily denunciation of democracy which is put out by Goebbels, Hitler, Mussolini, Farinacci and others. German denunciation of democracy has been one of the things which has unified and steeled the will of the people of this country. Therefore, I rather take exception to what the hon. Member for Derby said because I do not think we are going to gain very much by trying to win a battle of words over the wireless. Indeed, it is very hard to know how much of our propaganda broadcasts get to the ears of listeners in Italy and Germany.
The country to which it is vital that we should give news is the United States of America. I rather doubt whether, at the present time, we are giving as much day to day homely information to the


American people as we ought to give. When I say that I want to differentiate between news, information and propaganda. I am certain that the last thing that we ought to try to do at any time in the United States is to put abroad propaganda. They do not want it, but they do want as much real news as we can possibly give them. The hon. Member opposite said one memorable truth and that is that the best weapon you can possibly have, as far as news and propaganda is concerned, is to tell the truth; to get the reputation for telling nothing but the truth. That is the most potent weapon you can possibly possess. I think that German propaganda has failed very largely in this country because we and indeed the German people also to a large extent know that it is a tissue of cleverly put together falsehoods. I should even doubt whether the German or Italian people pay much attention to their own speakers when they broadcast. It is essential that we should get across to the people of the United States the conditions obtaining in this country—the homely conditions, the way the people are taking the war, not censored news, but as much definite news of the actual effect of the war on the man in the street as we can give. We should concentrate much more upon that, than upon foreign propaganda to Germans or the Italians.
The last war taught us that propaganda is a very dangerous two-edged weapon. Indeed if there was anything we learnt from the last war it was that if we speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as much as possible we are in an invincible and impregnable position. The hon. Member for Derby talked about the weapon of ideas. I cannot help thinking that laying too much stress on these means is rather like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey in order to make it do what you want it to do. Underlying it there is an idea that if you dangle some particular hope or aim in front of the Italian or German people, they will react at once with great violence against their own rulers. I think that in war you have to beat the enemy first and having beaten the enemy first you can then begin to talk to the beaten people as to what should be done to rebuild the world.
I believe that the Minister of Information has done an immense work while he

has been in his office. As a critic of his in the past and possibly in the future, I am bound to pay my tribute to him in this House for what he has done in order to get the machine running. There was a time when in the postbag of every Member of this House there was considerable criticism about the Ministry of Information. The Press were saying that they were not getting enough news. You do not find that to-day. You do not read in the Press criticisms of the Ministry, saying that they cannot get the facts and the news that they want at the proper time or that foreign correspondents are not being given the news. You do not hear that and it is only fair to say that the good conditions now prevailing are the result of what has been done by the Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I say that that part of his speech which was interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) will give considerable joy both in Berlin and in Rome. It is a most dangerous thing to set out in detail some of the difficulties and disabilities which are now being undergone and cheerfully and patiently undergone by members of the staff of the B.B.C. It puts my right hon. Friend in a very difficult position.
Many of us know that it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to answer in detail some of the criticisms from the opposite bench. One of the most important things in the war is to preserve, as far as possible, the efficiency and the security of your broadcasting organisation and therefore to call attention to difficulties which may exist will give great heart to the enemy. I can imagine how "Lord Haw-Haw" to whom I do not often listen, will go off to-night or to-morrow night in all his glory because of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman of the difficulties under which his opposite numbers in this country have to work. It is not a wise thing to rely too much upon broadcasts given from this country by nationals either German or Italian. It is true as my hon. Friend said just now, that the tendency in their own countries is to look on them as traitors. I think that that is so and I will tell the hon. Member why.
We know perfectly well that those renegade Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen, or whoever they may be who


speak from Germany and Italy, have little effect in this country. "Lord Haw-Haw" whose real name, I think, is Joyce, has become a joke. I do not believe that the effect of a broadcast by a German or Italian from this country is half as great in Germany or Italy, as a broadcast given by an Englishman or a British subject to the German and Italian people, because obviously it is possible for the authorities in those countries to say "Do not listen to this man. After all, he is of German or Italian blood and is only a traitor bought by the British." I think it is much wiser for us to rely upon our own people to put our case—and I agree it should be put—to the Germans and Italians.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The point is of great importance, but I submit that the difference between the two cases is this: In this country we are all united behind our Government. We have full confidence in them and it was at the urgent instance of a free Parliament that war was declared. But there is overwhelming evidence that war would never have been declared either by Germany or Italy if there had been a free decision of Parliament in those countries where their people hate war and have no confidence in their Governments. I believe it is wrong to regard Germans outside, who are anti-Nazis, as traitors to their cause.

Mr. Denville: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the German watchword is "My country, right or wrong."

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have, in fact, some experience. The Germans who speak as anonymous announcers—and some are known in Germany—have an extremely good effect.

Sir A. Southby: After the minor Debate which has just taken place I may perhaps be allowed to resume my own speech, poor though it may be. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said there is overwhelming evidence but I have not yet heard that any German soldier, sailor or airman is not fighting wholeheartedly. I know of no evidence to show that at the present time, whatever undercurrents may exist in Germany, there is not a completely solid effort by the German forces to fight to the best of their ability. I think there may be in Italy rather different conditions. There may be some

Italian forces who are not so well disciplined or efficient as the German forces but I think it is a great mistake and wishful thinking—a horrid expression—to imagine that because we want to think the German people are not behind their masters, therefore they are not in fact solidly behind their masters. We shall win the war a great deal quicker if we believe that we must beat the German and Italian people in the field before we win.
We shall not win the war by words. I would back Goebbels any day in a war of words, even against my right hon. Friend himself because my right hon. Friend is not, I am sure, a perverter of the truth. Perhaps I have not put that as well as I might have done and I apologise but we shall never win a war by an exchange of words with the Germans and Italians. I think it is a great mistake to think that by foreign broadcasts from this country against the rulers of Germany and Italy we shall thereby advantage ourselves very much. I think it may have some effect on latent fires and cause smouldering embers to break into flame one day, but I do not think it is in any way commensurate with the effect which will result from our concentrating upon beating Germany and Italy in the field.
There is one other thing which the hon. Member said which rather troubled me. He seemed to imply that in our foreign broadcasts we were not maintaining our standard of truth. If he has concrete evidence he should give it; he should not hint it in open Session in this House because that is a dangerous thing to do. I am sure we all pin our faith upon the truth being given not only in our own broadcasts but in broadcasts to the Italian and German people. Anything said in this House goes out with considerable weight. Whatever Hitler and Mussolini say about democracy, they know perfectly well that what is said in this House is listened to in the outside world and has an immense effect, particularly in the United States. Therefore, we do not want to say anything in this House which would suggest, even for a moment, that something going out under the aegis of the right hon. Gentleman, with the hall-mark of the British Government upon it, is not strictly the truth. I do agree that it is a good thing that people who broadcast should


broadcast under their own names, and not anonymously, so that those who hear them may know who is speaking, of course, under the aegis of the Government. Anonymous broadcasting is not a very good thing at the present time. Do not let us do anything which will undermine the faith which has been built up throughout the world that what goes out from Broadcasting House is the truth. I think a fair criticism is that more ought to go out, but, after all, we are not qualified to judge what it is wise should be broadcast or withheld in the national interest.
Another point I would like to put to my right hon. Friend, although it is not following the lines which the Debate has taken up to now, is the question of the local information bureaux. The Minister of Information is charged with the primary responsibility, as I see it, of providing the world with a true picture of happenings during the war and of news which emanates from this country. The Minister set up, at a time when, obviously, it was the right thing to do, local information committees throughout the country. They were designed to give information in different localities at a time of extreme crisis when communications might be cut. I do not believe that they should operate as centres of propaganda. They should remain dormant until there is necessity for them to be used in case, say, of invasion. Many hon. Members who have some experience of the working of these committees will, I think, agree with me when I say that there should be nothing for them to do at the present time. This country does not require committees, sitting in different parts of the country, to keep up its morale. Its morale is pretty good; in fact, it is very good and does not require bolstering up. I ask my right hon. Friend whether, for example, "London's Awake," of which 27 copies have been printed since September, serves any useful purpose. It would be much better if the contents of this publication appeared in the public Press. I would rather see the paper used by this publication given to the newspapers so that they could have larger papers. I do not believe the Minister set up these local information committees for this purpose. The publication is headed,
The aim of 'London's Awake' is to give to the members of Local Information Committees, Information Officers and the other

workers in the London Region, speaking points and ideas which they may pass on, and to be a link between them and our Office.
That is not what these committees were set up for. They were set up to give the people of this country information and statements and instructions if and when the ordinary channels broke down. I suggest it is time for us to consider whether some of these activities had not better be curtailed. In this particular issue, for example, part of the space is devoted, at a time when there is great paper shortage, to an advertisement of a most excellent rally, which I am sure will be a great success, at Islington, by the Local Information Committee. It is to take place in the Archway Central Hall, where a musical performance will be provided by the band of His Majesty's Irish Guards, assisted by two singers. Is it really necessary that we should have this publication, coming out week by week, wasting this paper? That is not fulfilling the functions which we in this House thought these committees would carry out. Is it really necessary to have these sort of parish magazines coming out in various areas? I receive three copies of this publication a week from various committees, and I ask the Minister whether it would not be wiser to consider closing down some of the activities of the regional committees.
Although I do not agree with all the hon. Member for Derby has said, he was, I think, in the main, helpful to the House and the country in his remarks. I agree that we want to increase our broadcast talks to foreign countries, but I do not think that so much as he suggests will accrue from broadcasting to our two opponents. Again, I emphasise the vital necessity for increasing the flow of information to the country upon which we rely, and shall rely in the future, namely, the United States. It is essential that the public in the United States should be given the utmost information at our disposal which can be given without injury to our war effort. I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend has that necessity very close to his heart and realises its importance.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Anyone who sees these two bits of paper that we are discussing realises what a tremendous sacrifice they involve for the taxpayer. I hesitate to urge that more money should be spent, but I rise to support very strongly what the hon Member


for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has said, and not only because of his excessively kind remarks about myself, but because I am convinced that you cannot possibly exaggerate the importance of the work that the Ministry of Information should do and to a great extent is doing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last referred, very rightly, to the importance of broadcasts to the United States. I do not want to do what the Minister will do very much better later on, but I wonder whether he realises the enormous number of informative broadcast talks that go to the United States about the spirit of the people in this country. I think they should satisfy the need.

Sir A. Southby: I was not meaning only broadcast talks. I meant conveying information by all means—by letter, by articles and by speeches as well as by broadcasting.

Mr. Bartlett: I admit that other lines probably should be developed a great deal, but so much is being done by broadcasting that we need not worry very much. We are obviously not going to win this war only by blockade, by air attack or by invasion. There is a tendency to say we must build up an enormous Army, but we shall always be out-numbered by the Germans in that respect, and it seems to me that we must develop this weapon of propaganda as much as we can. As I see it, there is still not enough centralised direction, and there is also too much secrecy about it. Obviously some forms of propaganda must be done in secret, but that should not prevent centralised control of all the rest, and I think all propaganda should be centralised under the control of the right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench, including propaganda to enemy countries, which is still organised in elaborate and exaggerated secrecy. The organisation which carries out propaganda in enemy countries has an extremely able staff, in many ways more able than the present foreign division of the Ministry of Information, where there is still a certain number either of diplomats, whose whole training and tradition must be against giving out news, or of people whose knowledge of the languages of the countries they are supposed to deal with is very incomplete.
But I do not think one ought to recommend that, because perhaps the personnel

of the Department which now does propaganda in enemy countries is better equipped than the personnel of the Ministry, the control of propaganda in these occupied countries should be transferred to that other Department, because that other Department works in secrecy, and it seems to me essential that we should get away as much as we can from this atmosphere of secrecy in propaganda. I would also urge that as quickly as possible the Minister should extend his control over the B.B.C.—not in any way to limit the relative freedom of opinions which are expressed, especially in talks by commentators who speak over their own names, but rather to defend the B.B.C. from the various guidances of officials in different Government Departments who have no experience whatever in the presentation of news.
I understand that there is now an adviser from the Ministry of Information attached to the B.B.C.—a very able adviser. That is a step in the right direction which I welcome. It has been taken since we last had a debate on this subject. I think that that adviser needs somebody attached to him who has direct experience in the presentation of news. There is still great discontent among the junior staff of the B.B.C., and I suggest that this adviser should do as is done, for example, in the Foreign Office News Department, and hold a daily conference at which there would be all those representatives of the B.B.C. who have to deal with the presentation of news bulletins or talks for home, for foreign countries and for the Empire. He should tell them as much as he can about the situation and leave it to them to exercise their own judgment in using that guidance. Something of that sort must be done if the keenness of the B.B.C. staff is to be maintained. As much as possible must be done to bring out their own sense of responsibility. Two hon. Members have regretted that my hon. Friend referred to the conditions of the B.B.C. and have suggested that it would give material to "Lord Haw-Haw." I think the contrary. In view of those conditions, which have been lamentable—we know that some have been unavoidable because of enemy action—the fact that the staff of the B.B.C. has kept up that high level of service and has now to a great extent got the Germans on the


defensive is a remarkable tribute to them. I think that the hon. Member was right in bringing out that point. Although the B.B.C. has been damaged by bombs, I believe that only one news bulletin of 10 minutes has failed to get out to its would-be listeners.
I sometimes feel that the right hon. Gentleman is contented if his Department which deals with news keeps out of the news. The Ministry of Information is one of the most important fighting Departments, and I do not think that a purely passive attitude is good enough. The Ministry has now a new Director-General, who enjoys great confidence and is, obviously, a man of great ability. It now has news with which it can do a great deal to encourage people in the occupied territories. There are the successes of General Wavell from the military point of view and the admirable proposals for the future of Abyssinia in order to ensure that the world order we have to build up will be a good deal better than the Hitler order. I think that the Minister of Information should be in the War Cabinet, but he can hardly be blamed for not being there. I hope that he will leave the Committee with the conviction that the Ministry is really now going ahead—it has great things to its credit in the last few months—and that it will go ahead with even greater vigour than before.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The Debate to-day has shown on all sides good feeling and friendliness towards the Minister and the work that his Department is doing. That is thoroughly deserved. I thought that one point in the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), which he made in criticism of the Ministry, might even be used in defence of it. I shall mention it later. One sphere of the Minister's activities which has been mentioned only briefly deserves, I think, the most emphatic praise, and that is the films division and the work it has been doing. I am thinking particularly of films such as "The Bombardment of London," "Christmas in England," "Dover," and so on, which seem to me as perfect propaganda as could be put out. The photographs are true and the comment—and I think this is significant when they are intended for America, particularly—is generally made not by an

Englishman but by an American. Those films are, I think, an example of the most efficient work that the Minister is performing, and I congratulate him.
The hon. Member for Derby spoke of Italy as a country where much more could be done, but when we actually see the state of morale of the Italian Army and the Italian people, I should have thought it ought to cross the mind of everybody in this House that possibly the Ministry had done its job extremely well. Naturally, it may not be until many years after the war that we shall be able to judge whether, if we had taken the different steps suggested by the hon. Member for Derby, they would have worked more rapidly or less rapidly with the Italian people. But I think the more we study this question of propaganda in countries abroad, particularly enemy countries, the more we become convinced of this fact, that the question of time is all-important, and while it may be perfectly right now, that an attack on Fascism in Italy is the correct policy, it by no means follows that at an earlier stage it was not the correct policy rather to single out Mussolini. I certainly should not be prepared to criticise the Ministry of Information on the effect of its propaganda in Italy on the evidence at present before us.
Now I wish to pass to a different point. Here I am in considerable agreement with all the speeches that have been made on this subject this afternoon, but I wish to make one or two new points. That is the question of news and propaganda to foreign countries. An obvious point which is too often forgotten is that foreign countries constantly listen to broadcasts which are not intended for them. That is a most important point to remember. I recall that once, when speaking to some advertisers and criticising certain matters in connection with their art or science, I was informed that I had been reading advertisements which were not intended for me. No doubt I had, and people in foreign countries are constantly listening to broadcasts not intended for them. It is very difficult to make, in an open Session of this House, the points which I should like to make, since I cannot give examples in open Session of cases in which great harm has been done to our relations with foreign countries not at present at war, through matters that were


broadcast to them in the news or comments upon the news.
The hon. Member for Derby said—and I am in sympathy with his wish, if it were a wish that could be fulfilled—that it would be very unfortunate if it were assumed in foreign countries that everything given out over the B.B.C. necessarily emanated from the British Government. I agree entirely with his wish, but I am afraid that whatever is done, that will be the conviction of a great number of listeners in foreign countries. So much is that the case, that they even attribute to the British Government things which are announced in the news as having been said by some foreign newspaper. They forget that what the B.B.C. announced was that it had appeared in some paper in Belgrade that morning. They only remember that the particular thing was mentioned in the broadcast from England.
The effect of this is so important and can be so dangerous that, I put it to my right hon. Friend and to the Committee, it is absolutely essential that the responsibility for news and broadcasts to foreign countries should be the responsibility of the Government. I leave it open whether it should be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend or of the Foreign Office. Whichever it is, I know that there will be liaison and that it will be a responsibility of the Government. It is not satisfactory to leave it as the responsibility of the B.B.C., limited only by guidance given by the Foreign Office or by my right hon. Friend on general lines, which sometimes either is not understood or is not followed. I should be happy to give to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary in private some of the matters which I have in mind and which are obviously not suitable for discussion in open Session. I strongly reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) and to some extent by the hon. Member for Derby that the Minister, or the Foreign Office, must be prepared to take further responsibility for some things which at present fall within the province of the B.B.C. or fall between two stools.
The only other matter which I want to mention is that of broadcasting to enemy troops and what can be hoped from it. Here is a matter on which I differ from the hon. Member for Derby. He said, and rightly, that, our reputation for truth being one of our most

precious possessions in this matter of propaganda, it would be a great mistake if we lowered our standard of veracity in the broadcasts. It is a very great error, in my submission, to suppose that that which might be useful inside Germany would necessarily be useful in the occupied countries. Whatever is said in any of these broadcasts is picked up and used in all countries. I ask the hon. Member for Derby to consider the effect that some of the statements which he regards as so useful inside Germany may have among the oppressed nations overrun by Germany. The hon. Member quoted the statement made by the late Prime Minister, and very often made at the beginning of the war, that we had no quarrel with the German people. I always opposed that statement, because I believed it to be untrue. Whether we wished it or not, the German people were, and are, substantially united behind their Government and thoroughly approve of the effort t o destroy this country.
That is a matter of controversy in which I give my own opinion, but it has always been important to realise that these two truths are complementary: if Governments have a responsibility, as they have to their peoples, the peoples cannot be allowed to escape all responsibility for the acts of their Governments. The effect of this statement that we had no quarrel with the German people was, and would be in the future, to cause doubt whether this country was going to pursue this war to what the countries neighbouring Germany regard as the only successful end. In the early days of the war the effect on such countries as Holland and Belgium was very much this. These were countries whose peoples thought they knew the Germans quite as well as the English did; in fact, there were many more Germans in those countries than here. Therefore, they thought that they could judge the aims of the Germans and the extent to which they stood behind their Government as well as the English. They feared that if the war ended in favour of Great Britain, the people of Great Britain, in their easy-going and generous way, would say, "We have won this war; we can now afford to be gentle with the Germans again." I believe they know what I believe an increasing number of people in


this country now know, that we shall lose this war unless we break, and break for ever, the military might of Germany. We can keep the military might of Germany broken for ever only if we are prepared to maintain sufficient armaments ourselves to see that they do not re-arm.
That, I believe, is the opinion of an overwhelming number of Germany's victims. I believe it also to be true that there is no way of wrapping up that fact in a way which will make it palatable and attractive to those who are to-day enthusiastically fighting Hitler's battles. I hope that the Minister will not try to achieve the impossible. In Germany and in Italy the possibilities of what we can do by propaganda are, of necessity, limited. Let him not try to achieve greater effects by saying anything that might be attractive to those countries but which would be profoundly discouraging to our Allies, actual and potential.

Commander King-Hall: In the five minutes which I have at my disposal I hope the Committee will excuse me if I put my points extremely briefly and without very much argument to support them. I would like to make a few suggestions which I hope my right hon. Friend will recognise as being made with a view to assisting his Department to add to the considerable war effort which it has achieved up to the present. The thesis which I would like the Committee to put in its mind at the outset is that total war definitely consists of a combination of two strategies, one of which is directed towards obtaining victory over the enemy by bringing pressure to bear upon the enemy's bodies, and the other a parallel strategy, which leads towards victory by an assault on the psychological plane. I have gathered from most of the speeches to-day that hon. Members feel either that more could be done on the psychological plane, or that, on the whole, it is really a waste of time, and probably of money, to do very much on that side until one has achieved great military success.
On behalf of those who feel that more should be done on the psychological plane, I would like to point out that we are not asking that fewer bombs should be dropped on the Germans or that the blockade should not be intensified, if

that be possible. We are asking that additional pressure should be brought to bear on the enemy and that that pressure should take place on the psychological plane. Then, people who do not hold that view say that it is a waste of time talking to the Germans, and perhaps the Italians, because they are people upon whom that kind of thing makes no impression. If that should be the case it seems to me very extraordinary that Dr. Goebbels, with his enormous organisation, should exist at all. Why did he exist before the war? The very magnitude, the character, of the German propaganda machine seems to me to show how thoroughly afraid the Nazi party is that German public opinion should get out of hand. For that reason we have in front of us, from our enemy's side, ample evidence that they are probably as afraid of what our propaganda might do as they are of any other side of our war effort.
In conclusion, I will put this one point. In fighting a total war one should have one's eye on the fact that war is only a means to an end. What we are aiming at is the establishment of a total peace, and if in the conduct of our war we can bring pressure to bear on the enemy and achieve victory by a mixture of force and persuasion, there may be something in the view that results obtained by persuasion are more permanent than results obtained by force. Therefore, I think that in the conduct of total war one should always aim at including in the war strategy the element of persuasion, based, as many speakers have pointed out, on the goodness of our cause and our insistence on speaking the truth. By combining these two forms of strategy together, we may possibly write into the final victory a degree of permanence which was certainly not reached as a result of 1914 to 1918, but which may be reached if our plan for victory includes persuasion as well as force.
I find some difficulty, however, in seeing how my right hon. Friend can deliver the psychological broadsides against the enemy which I hope and believe he wishes to deliver, and which I hope and believe I shall see him deliver, unless he has some rather larger shells to put into his propaganda guns than is the case at present. That is why I am one of those who feel that sooner or later—and I think the time, if not actually ripe,


is very nearly ripe—we must make up our minds to take the risk of producing something as a counterblast to Hitler's much vaunted and, if you examine it, entirely bogus, although in some respects rather specious, new order in Europe.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down was relegated to so short a space of time in which to address the Committee. He said he would speak for only five minutes, and, unlike other Members who make that promise, I think he actually diminished his own allowance. He is one of the most experienced, and is among the most successful, propagandists in the country, and I am sure we should all have been grateful for further advice from the hon. and gallant Member.
This question of propaganda is a difficult one to discuss in the House of Commons, which is listened to by all the world. I have always felt that it is one of the services which are playing a great part in the conduct of the war, along with the Fighting Services, and that to discuss the ways and means of propaganda in public is almost as difficult as to discuss strategy and tactics. I doubt whether anything has been said to-day which could possibly be of any advantage to the enemy, but I have felt more than once that there was that danger. Our enemy is astute; he is ever on the watch, and can deduce from words idly allowed to fall in speeches, or even from interruptions in the House, facts and information which may be of great value. All of us who took part in the last war remember how much value the General Staff used to attach to very small pieces of information. Great risks were run in night sallies and attacks, in order to capture one member of the enemy forces, so as to find out what corps or regiment were occupying the trenches opposite to those we were occupying ourselves. We must realise then, when discussing these all important topics, how careful we must be.
We have been told frequently to-day how inferior to our enemies we are in the great art of propaganda. I do not believe that that is true. Goebbels certainly achieved great success in peace-time, because he was fighting with a vast army at his back, with unlimited expenditure at his command, and with no opponents in the field. We had no Minister of

Propaganda, or of Information, and other countries also lacked such equipment; so Goebbels persuaded many simple souls into believing what he wanted them to believe, that Germany required only certain things, and that it would be easy to persuade her to accept terms. If we look at what has happened in these 18 months of warfare, at what has taken place in the United States, where we have been, perhaps, too backward in giving information, and in attempting to form opinion, we find, there and elsewhere, that Germany's credit has fallen, even while her victories were increasing. We can only hope and believe that the hundreds of millions of pounds spent by Goebbels and his department on propaganda have been wasted. Our more sober, pedestrian, and slow methods are catching him up, if they have not already caught up, and will in the end surpass him.
The main subject to-day has been the B.B.C., that extremely important vehicle of propaganda. Everybody can criticise the B.B.C., and certainly will do so, as long as the B.B.C. exists. But we should remember the difficulties of the B.B.C., and pay some tribute to the B.B.C. for what their achievement has been. In this House, with 600 Members—although they are not always all present—he is a clever speaker who can please his entire audience—a small audience, but an extremely critical one. The B.B.C. addresses an audience sometimes of 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 people. A Member speaking in this House occupies the Floor for perhaps 20 minutes at a time. B.B.C. programmes occupy not 24, but 48, hours every day. I only wonder that the criticisms are not more violent, and the mistakes more frequent. The B.B.C. have been working under difficulties. The fact has been revealed—there is no longer any necessity for concealing it—that they suffered a direct hit and had casualties, and that within half-an-hour the whole of Broadcasting House had been evacuated. Yet that might not a single listener was aware that there had been casualties at Broadcasting House. The whole programme was carried on. The following morning a 10-minutes broadcast of foreign news was missed, because the announcer did not turn up in time. That is the only part of the B.B.C. programme that has been missed. That is a great achievement.
The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has criticised the conditions in which those serving in the B.B.C. are now working. I accept those criticisms and recognise that they are completely justified. They were justified, as he said, when he made them towards the end of December, and the improvement which we hoped to achieve has not yet been achieved. There have been disappointments and great difficulties in getting into new buildings at the present time. The staff of the B.B.C. cannot be moved as other staffs. They have to have all the technical appliances and all the cables. Hon. Members who realise this fact will readily understand the difficulties that the B.B.C. has to encounter in going from one station to another. There have been these difficulties and disappointments. We hope that the move that has now been made will be successful. I can assure the hon. Member for Derby that I have myself visited the places where the staff of the B.B.C. are now housed, and I appreciate fully as much as he does the difficulties under which they are working, and I pay tribute to those who are working under these difficulties, in that they do not complain, because they see themselves in the same way as those who serve in the fighting Services. They realise what fighting men have to put up with in time of war, and they carry on, and are proud and glad to carry on, in discomfort and in danger because they are doing a tremendous service for their country. We shall do everything we can with the least possible delay to remedy those conditions.
I should perhaps make plain exactly the position with regard to the relations of the Government and the B.B.C. because it is a slightly anomalous position, but one which, I think, ought to be maintained. There were two courses open when war broke out. We had the power to revoke the charter granted to the B.B.C. and make it simply a Government Department. It was open to the Government at any moment to take that step. The view of the Government was that it would be unwise to do so. It is a general principle in war-time—I think it has been a sound principle—that, while it is necessary to interfere with the liberty enjoyed by the people of this country owing to the exigencies of the war, such interference should be as slight as possible, and

when it has made its appearance precautions should be taken in order that, on the completion of the war, the status quo ante should be reverted to and the liberty should be restored.
When, as Minister of Information, I endeavoured to ascertain what my relation would be to the B.B.C. I consulted with those in authority at the B.B.C., and they said, quite frankly, that they were prepared, as far as possible, to do anything I wished. I really could ask nothing more than that. They have held completely to that view. They have always met every question affecting policy when I have made the wishes of the Government plain, but there has not been that complete liaison which we desired between Government advice and the independent conduct of the B.B.C. It was decided that we should appoint from the Government two advisers to the B.B.C., one on general topics, and home policy more particularly, and one on foreign policy, and that these two officers should be officers of the Ministry of Information under the control of the Minister of Information, who should, as far as any political issues were concerned, be able to give advice which would be taken by the B.B.C. If there was a difference with the Director-General, it should be referred to the Minister of Information for decision. That plan, which has only recently been decided upon, was referred to by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) to-day. We have already appointed a foreign adviser, but have not yet selected an officer as home and general adviser.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can we be told who he is?

Mr. Cooper: The foreign adviser is Mr. Kirkpatrick, who for many years was a Counsellor at Berlin and who has a wide knowledge of politics. I am sure he will fill the position admirably. The only reason that we have not yet filled the other position is that we have not succeeded in getting a man of equally wide knowledge and importance to fill it. The Prime Minister said to-day that it was not too easy to find good men in these days, and it is no good putting somebody there who cannot exercise authority and will not have the necessary experience of politics in this country, the Press and all the facets of the question which will enable


him to carry out the duties of so important a position. I hope in this way that through the complete harmony which exists already between the Government and the B.B.C., we shall be able to work more easily and swiftly and with less interruption than hitherto.
That, I think, is really the solution of the question which has been raised as to where the responsibility lies. The responsibility, so far as the activities of the B.B.C. are connected with politics, lies with me, and I am always prepared to meet it in the House of Commons and answer for any of the activities of the B.B.C. But at the same time I do not want—and I think hon. Members will agree—the B.B.C. to become simply the mouthpiece of the Government. I think there was a little inconsistency in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby when he seemed to suggest that it was most undesirable that the B.B.C. should be the mouthpiece of the Government while he criticised bitterly the fact that a Polish officer who commanded a German regiment in the last war should have been allowed to say in German to the Germans that from his point of view the whole of the German people were guilty and would be punished for the crime they had committed. Nobody will say that this was the voice of the British Government. It was the case of a Polish officer speaking as a refugee in England, and surely it is a right thing that a man should voice these opinions if he holds them. Nobody would imagine that he was the mouthpiece of the British Government; he was merely speaking as an individual and stated his view to the German people and the German army.
If we eliminate from the discussions of the B.B.C. all individual opinion, although it may shock some people and delight others, the B.B.C. will become a dull, dead voice—a sort of official "Gazette." I am all in favour of permitting not only violent statements to be made by independent persons, but criticism of the Government. Many people are very much offended when speakers at the B.B.C. are allowed to criticise His Majesty's Government, but I believe it is right that we should keep the B.B.C. as a public forum—in so far as it does not interfere with the prosecution of the war—where all opinions should be

freely voiced, and this is a principle which I hope will be carried out in the future.

Mr. G. Strauss: If that is the Minister's view, could he make representations to the B.B.C. as to their policy in not allowing anyone whose political opinions differ from those of the Government to broadcast on technical, religious or musical subjects?

Mr. Cooper: I was careful to say that the opportunity to anybody to speak on the B.B.C. should be limited to speakers and opinions which were not likely to interfere with the prosecution of the war. If a man spends his leisure time in making public speeches against carrying on the war, if a man is a notorious pacifist, and thereby helps our enemies and is therefore an enemy of this country—which pacifists are, for, in the words of the Archbishop of York, pacifists are deliberately helping Hitler to win the war—then he should not be given the privilege of being allowed to address the public, or even promoted to the distinction of performing in public, over the wireless. There are quite enough performers and speakers to fill the programmes of the B.B.C. day and night without having recourse to those who, in my opinion, are the enemies of this country.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), for whose speech I am extremely grateful, said that he thought we might do more with regard to speaking to America. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater said, there is a very large number of talks to America night after night. Here again, as far as information is concerned, neither the B.B.C. nor the Ministry of Information can provide it; we can only see that when we get it, it is transmitted to the widest possible public. In the United States they have a news service from all countries in the world, so that now they are probably getting more information from many sources than any other country. I do not think it is information or persuasion that they are lacking. Distinguished Americans whom I have met recently have said that if the great change that has taken place in opinion in the United States during the last few months were in any degree due to the Ministry of Information, then I might


consider that I have made a wonderful success of my job. I was obliged to assure them that it was not, in my opinion, due to the Ministry of Information, but to events over which I had no control.
My hon. and gallant Friend also criticised the local information committees and said that he felt these bodies, which were set up for a particular purpose at a particular moment of crisis, were extending their activities into a realm where they were neither necessary nor perhaps even desirable. I quite recognise that there is something in that view. In war-time, if one gives people a job to do and they find that there is not very much to do in it, their energy and their conscience urge them to find work, and to make it even if it is not there. Perhaps some of the local information committees have erred in that direction, and any efforts that may be necessary to restrain their activities will be made. With regard to the publication to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, and which he said is a very good publication—"London's Awake"—the cost is almost infinitesimal in comparison with expenditure at the present time, and I feel that the publication has more or less justified itself.
I feel there is so me force in the criticism of the hon. Member for Bridgwater when he says that he thinks it is the object of the Ministry of Information at present to keep out of the news. If he had been as much in the news as the Ministry has in the past, perhaps he would rather sympathise with it if its attitude is that of a burnt child who fears the fire. But there is more in it than that. The Ministry cannot succeed in its work if it is at loggerheads with the Press all the time. The Ministry must work in co-operation with the Press. It has been my object, ever since I have been at the Ministry, to get the Press to work together with us, for that is the only way in which our work and their work can be properly done.
Certain genera] principles of propaganda have been raised to-day, but I have hardly time to deal with them. The hon. Member for Derby raised the very interesting question whether it is wise to rely upon native rather than upon foreign talent in propaganda in foreign countries. There is a great deal to be said upon both

sides. There is the argument that a man who is a native of the country to which the broadcast is going may be looked upon by some of his fellow countrymen, to whom he is speaking in their own tongue but from a foreign soil, as a renegade and a traitor, whereas an Englishman, speaking, it may be, with a slight accent, will get a better public. Conditions vary from country to country and from time to time, and we do not in any way exclude either Italians or Germans from speaking on the broadcast. There is also something to be said on the subject of whether propaganda should be too conciliatory. There is the danger that if you are too conciliatory the man who listens will say: "Well, we are all right. If we win it will be splendid, and if we lose the English are not going to be hard upon us. Let us get on with the war. What have we to worry about?" There is that kind of danger which besets the art, if it is an art, of propaganda. So far as the main principles are concerned, I am sure that we in this House are all of one opinion, that we should voice continually through our propaganda the desirability of liberty and freedom, the things for which we are fighting, and that we should observe throughout the principle of truth.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a sate of war.

VOTE OF CREDIT, 1941.

(EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and


the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.
Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, the sum of £600,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

FIRE PREVENTION ORDER.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Grimston.]

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to raise the question of the Fire Prevention Order which was issued when the House was in Recess. Let me make it clear that I do not raise it in any factious spirit. Anyone who has had the experience which we have had is bound to support steps to be taken to prevent a repetition. As a result of that experience, and having moved among the population that went through it and walked miles in order to survey the damage, I put several Questions down with a view to being as helpful as possible, so that we could profit by the experience and take steps to prevent a repetition of it. I now want to make some observations on behalf of the thousands of people who have rallied to the call that has been made, in the industrial areas in particular, and who have suffered as a

result of the new fire tactics carried on by German aircraft. It is clear that if fire watchers are injured by enemy action, they are entitled to compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Scheme. What are their legal rights if they are injured while going to duty or while on duty, apart from being injured by enemy action? Suppose a man stumbles in the office or in the works yard or road, or is injured in any other way through no fault of his own, what is his legal position in regard to compensation?
This duty will mostly be carried on at night, and often men and women will be engaged on it from 6 at night until 6 in the morning, particularly during the winter. They will require additional tea, probably a supper which they would not otherwise have, and breakfast in the morning. I know one firm which is allowing fire watchers £3 10s. a week. On the other hand, one of the largest and best-known combines is allowing only 2s. a night. There ought to be snore equality of treatment, and it is the responsibility of the Ministry to advise employers, municipalities and other responsible authorities what is a reasonable amount to be allowed. At the same time, more regard ought to be paid to the welfare of the Auxiliary firemen than in the past. What does the Ministry consider is a reasonable allowance that should be made to enable watchers, particularly during the night, to have light refreshments and other essentials?
The Order states that before making any such arrangements, the occupier of the premises shall consult with the persons working at the premises or with their representatives. What action has been taken to see that this consultation takes place? At present very little consultation is taking place and this background of compulsory powers is being exploited by employers and others in order to enable them to instruct their workpeople what duties they must undertake. That ought not to be encouraged, and it is the duty of the Ministry to take early steps to see that the maximum of consultation takes place between the authorities and the representatives of the workpeople.
Have the responsible organisations in industry been consulted with regard to this Order? It is the practice of the Government that the maximum of consultation


should take place between Government Departments and the responsible organisations before any change is brought about. Was that done in this case and, if not, why not? Have the responsible organisations been consulted since the Order was issued and, seeing that we are now calling upon people to accept the responsibility in connection with this, as soon as possible the Ministry ought to send out notices to all firms and municipalities indicating to all interested that the maximum amount of consultation shall take place between the authorities and the representatives of the people engaged in this kind of work in accordance with the Order. If the Ministry is not very careful, a great deal of uneasiness and unfairness is going to be brought about as a result of the publication of the Order. You may have a small office on this side of the road engaged upon important national work and perhaps fulfilling an important national service. It will probably employ a small number of specialists, and, because the Order has been issued in this way, this duty will fall upon them more heavily than it will in another office. An office on the other side of the road, which may have large resources, may be employing thousands of people. They will probably be employing the same kind of specialists, but, with their great resources, the responsibility for fire watching will not fall so heavily on their shoulders as upon those employed in the smaller office, though their work may be as important as the other.
Men engaged in the munitions industry will probably be going out to their employment at 6.30, and, as the result of overtime, many will be at work until 7 o'clock at night. On the other hand, the staff that goes to its work at 8.30 as often as not finishes at 5. How will that work out? It means that work-people who turn out at 6 o'clock or 6.30 in the morning will work the whole of that day and will carry out their fire-watching duties during the night. They will work the whole of the next day as well, with the result that they will be away from their homes for two days and one night. Although people are ready to play their part, the result of working under these conditions will be that the energies of the men will be sapped to such

an extent that production will be affected. I know of one large place where incendiaries were rained down, where, because firms were carrying out their legal obligations by providing fire watchers, the fires were quickly being got under control. At this point two special German aeroplanes dived down and machine-gunned those putting out the fires, with the result that the men had to run for their lives and the fires caught hold, with serious consequences. Therefore it should be the responsibility of the Minister to get into touch with the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air with a view to seeing that Bofors guns, or similar guns, are installed on important buildings, so that those engaged on putting out fires can be safeguarded and can carry out their duties without fear of being machine-gunned.
I know of no more forcible way of bringing home my argument than by quoting from an article which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian." The article states:
It is wise to try to organise adequate fire watching on the voluntary principle. Full-blown compulsion will be difficult to apply and would consume the administrative energy of officials who already have their hands full.
I wish to ask the Minister whether we are not running the danger of making local authorities top-heavy. Should not we be harnessing the wonderful spirit which exists in this country, and let that spirit find expression through channels of voluntary organisation? In this case public-spirited men and women could be found who would organise themselves and work "on their own." The article continues by stating that it is a waste of local government time waiting for the Administration to organise something which they could arrange themselves and that that was perhaps even more dangerous to the national effort than the wasting of valuable raw materials. The article complains that it is unfortunate that the Ministry of Home Security has not yet sent a guide which will set the standard for the scheme required. I should like to ask the Minister whether that guide has been sent. I read a guide which had been sent out by the Chief Constable of Stoke. It was an admirable guide, but this matter should be a national responsibility. Finally, the article stated that an appeal has been made for volunteers to watch over them-


selves and suggested that large firms with a superabundance of hands might help to guard neighbouring unprotected buildings.
When I first raised this question, I furnished the Parliamentary Secretary with the points that I was going to make. Therefore the Ministry knew the points which I proposed to raise. One point was that fire watchers should be provided as soon as possible with steel helmets. Imagine my surprise when I heard and saw what was arranged, that a Private Notice Question was put here and the way in which it was answered, and all that that means. I do not want to pursue the matter. I have been brought up in a different school from that, in which no big employer would have done a thing like that. If we are to maintain the arrangements which are supposed to be in practice in this House, and we are to be encouraged to pursue the line that we have followed up to now, that kind of thing ought not to take place. I do not want to say any more about it. Fire watchers should be provided with all equipment as soon as possible. The spirit of the men and women who are volunteering is wonderful, and the only way we can be worthy of our responsibility to them is to see that they are provided with all the necessary equipment as soon as possible.
What is the position of the problem of the locked buildings? What is the duty of the fire watchers in cases where they find that buildings are locked? I suggest without any hesitation whatever that it should be made compulsory for all premises to be easily accessible in case of need. Fire-fighting groups are being set up in all areas. The response has been remarkable, and it is for those people that I am speaking. I intended to develop these remarks, but I am limited for time, so I shall conclude by mentioning a particular area. There is no harm in doing so, because it has already been broadcast. The Ministry of Information announced, after the Manchester and Salford experience, that the people responsible for certain buildings had apparently neglected their legal obligation to provide an efficient service of fire watchers. Why have steps not been taken under the previous Order to see that the people responsible fulfilled their legal obligation? Whose duty was it to see that the Order was

observed? What action has been taken with the responsible people and those who did not prepare? We all suffer as a result of that neglect, and the House is entitled to an answer to my questions.
My final point is that it should be the duty of the Regional Commissioner of the area to attend the City Council meeting in order to profit from that experience. None of us know it all, particularly in these times, and we can learn something from one another and profit as a result of attending meetings of that kind. When I raised this matter in the House, the Home Secretary replied by saying that the Commissioner may have been too busy. My reply to that is that very few people are more busy in this country than Cabinet Ministers, and yet they have to attend regular meetings of this House. Most of us would agree that Cabinet Ministers profit by being in contact with this House and by our Debates. Their efforts are often stimulated by our discussions. If Cabinet Ministers can attend meetings of this House, it is not asking too much that the Regional Commissioner should attend meetings of the City Council.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I fully appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member has raised this brief Debate. He has not brought forward his points in any factious spirit, and what he has said reflects the real, practical difficulties which, not unnaturally, have arisen in connection with the operation of Orders so novel and so far-reaching as the Fire Prevention Orders—Orders in which speed is so clearly the essence of the contract. I can assure the House—and indeed I would like to tell hon. Members—how hard the officials of the Department, always hard-pressed, have worked to launch this scheme, the object of which is to safeguard us from the ordeal by fire which apparently the enemy is determined to press upon us. It has needed day-and-night work to produce these Orders with the speed with which they have been got out. But at the same time it was quite clear to us that there were likely to be gaps in these Orders, that practical difficulties would arise in their operation, and that we should have to deal with these difficulties as they arose. Difficulties are always easy to find, and it is our belief that the people of this country—the


people concerned with these Orders—will not look for difficulties, but that they will set about the creation of the fire-prevention organisation with spirit and determination. If they do that, I am certain that in many cases they will find the job done, and well done, before they come to the difficulties. Already there is much evidence that that has been the case. Business firms and ordinary residents in suburban areas are providing these parties, and almost all the letters which come to the Department are imbued with the spirit of getting on and not holding back. I think it is in that spirit that the hon. Member has raised this Debate.
It is often asked why the Orders were not issued earlier. I should like to remind the House that, as has often been said before, the enemy will condition his attack to our defence. One method of attack is tried, and the defence overcomes that form of attack. Then there is another form of attack, and so on. War, as Debate in this House should be, is a matter of cut and thrust, and it is always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to predict what form of attack will come next. Surely, on the whole, it is more wise to provide ourselves with defence against the attack which is being used against us at the moment, than to provide ourselves with defence against some attack which we think might come upon us in the future. The incendiary danger has always been realised. Under the Civil Defence Act there were, and are, obligations upon employers. It was realised that these obligations left gaps. Last September the Fire Watchers Order was promulgated, and now the obligation has been made universal. The hon. Member asked why the Fire Watchers Order was not in all cases carried out. There were real practical difficulties. In many cases it was impossible for employers to get the men they wanted to do the jobs.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Could the hon. Gentleman say whose responsibility it is, supposing employers cannot find the men?

Mr. Mabane: It is the responsibility of the local authority.

Mr. Lindsay: Not the regional commissioner?

Mr. Mabane: No, the local authority. Now we have this universal obligation which we have imposed upon the country in the speediest possible form. It is interesting to recognise that in ordinary times these new measures would have needed a Bill, and the Bill would doubtless have been one of major importance. Since speed was the essence of the contract, we proceeded by the speediest method which the House has permitted us to employ.
Now I come to a specific point which the hon. Member raised, namely, why consultation did not take place with those organisations which are often consulted in these matters? Had consultation taken place there would have been delay. Also, this matter does not affect merely the ordinary organisations of employers and employés. It affects the whole of the country, and all are equally entitled to be consulted. Had the Department set about consulting everybody, then the practical difficulties would really have been overwhelming. If there was any body which ought to have been consulted, that body was this Assembly, the Mother of Parliaments.
Another question the hon. Member asked related to compensation. He quite rightly said that people who are in these fire parties will come under the ordinary Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme and he asked what would happen if they were injured while on duty but not through enemy action, or what would happen if they were injured while on duty at night if no alert had sounded. The answer, I am glad to say, is quite simple: it is that they are fully covered. If they are members of enrolled fire parties they will come within the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme and will be covered in the way in which he wishes them to be covered.
The hon. Member then asked what would be a reasonable allowance to be made for food, etc., for those doing duty. I would remind him that under these Orders no person is entitled to any remuneration at all in regard to fire prevention duties. It is a matter in which we are all doing our bit. I would remind him, too, of the significance in this respect of the provision in the Order to which he referred with regard to consultation. It is to the effect that before making any arrangements the occupier of the premises shall consult with the persons working at


the premises or with their representatives. Surely by this form of consultation a friendly arrangement will be arrived at in almost all cases that will deal satisfactorily with these matters of refreshment and so on. He also asked what steps were being taken if such consultations did not take place. I would like to say first of all that the Order is very fresh and that we have yet had no word that the consultations are not taking place. If they were not, I should have thought that the representatives of those who ought to have been consulted would soon have made their voices heard. Certainly the appropriate Department will have something to say on this matter. In some cases the Admiralty, the Ministry of Supply, and the Ministry of Aircraft Production are responsible for the arrangements, while in others it is the Ministry of Labour. I am quite certain that those Departments will make it their business to see that the consultations intended under the Order are carried out. Certainly, it is reasonable that occupiers should provide suitable sleeping accommodation and so on, but it is the intention that this fire prevention service should be regarded as an unpaid service, just like the service which has been so devotedly rendered by many wardens and others in the ordinary Civil Defence services who have had no remuneration at all throughout a long period.
I am sorry that the hon. Member seems to think he has been treated with discourtesy by me or by someone else on

the matter of supplies of steel helmets, but I should like to say that there was no connection between his Notice of Motion and the Answer given to the Question to-day. At any rate, he will agree that the answer fully meets the points he wished to raise. It is not considered necessary that these fire parties should be provided with service or civilian duty respirators. The provision of other equipment, stirrup pumps, etc., is being made as rapidly as possible, and I am glad to say that preparations are well ahead. Clearly the distribution of supplies will have to be arranged according to a system of priorities, and not all areas will get their supplies at the same time.
I think what I have said deals with most of the major difficulties raised by the hon. Member. He spoke of unfairness, and said that the obligations bore more heavily on some than on others. All I can say is that, of course, it will do so. That is bound to happen. He also asked how buildings could be entered if locked. The members of these parties, like members of the Civil Defence services, will have power to break in if there is a fire. That deals with the specific points the hon. Member has raised, but I should like in a final word to urge that everyone concerned should set about this matter with a will, not looking for difficulties, but employing practical common sense, and to give an assurance that we in the Department are doing our best to overcome the various difficulties as they arise.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.